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.

 

First things first: What Hit the Lightpoles?!

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
That's news to me, CL! Any ideas on cause?


I don't know. Ruptured gas main? backup generator inside? Additional explosives? The only point is it makes accounts of an explosion after stopping the car seem a lot less suspicious. Tho his deleting this from later accounts makes it seem suspicious again.

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]




posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Not ONE scratch on the hood of that cab means that someone bashed it in..but NO light pole crashed thru it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that a 200 plus pound light pole could fly through the air, crash into a moving vehicles windshield, come to a stop when the car sopts, is removed by hand...and not to leave ONE scratch on the hood?? How?

That alone proves that the cab is a set up; that cab driver is either an agent or was paid to cooperate in the ' war games ' and to keep telling the same story as best he could from now on. I would believe that before I would believe that a light pole could crash thru a windshield without leaving one scratch on the hood.

So no matter WHAT happened with the poles, it is for SURE an inside job and no plane at the Pentagon, a psy op[ with a missle type craft at ground level hitting the building and a larger craft overflying the Pentagon at the same moment to distract the eye.Two directions, two craft.

Can ANYONE believe that a light pole can crash into a car like that and not leave even one scratch? If so please tell me WHY odds that long should be believed.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CL,

It's almost comical the way you have the fortitude to address our research in forums where we can't reply but avoid me like the plague here.

So now Lagasse and Brooks were PROGRAMMED to fatally contradict the official story??



Were Turcios and Paik also hypnotized?

And how about the 2 new north side witnesses we have?

That sure seems like a lot of hypnotizing and a lot of effort to go through to prove their story WRONG!


Okay, well I tried. Sans hypnosis, that leaves nothing that makes sense but lying. And if there can be two, then why not a few immigrant civilians too? Unless of course they're all correct, which is the silliest conclusion of all given other facts on the ground.


Talk about reaching.

Sheesh.

Your quote:


His aaccount matches Lagasse's, so the same things apply. No memory probem can explain this, especially the same problem in two different heads. If one can be programmed to recall the north path, why not two? And if one can be convinced to lie, why not two?
And then some civilians to add supports from less 'controlled' sources and create an air of broader factuality?

Is this scenrio REALLY any more ridiculous than Lloyd, McGraw, and the USA Today guys as plants, the impossible flight path, unseen overflight, bombs that only bow columns inward, faked damage and and all that? Or is it far less ridiculous, meaning CIT should have entertained this scenario at least as seriously as the one they did instead of not at all? And then to get snippy when anyone even mentions it?


Listen to what nuttery you are proposing!


Yes, listen. Saves me time re-posting.


9/11 was an inside job. This means it was a deception.

For them to go to such lengths to get people to fatally contradict the same story that they worked so hard to create is beyond absurd.

Plus WE FOUND THESE WITNESSES ON OUR OWN.

Paik and Turcios were never cited by the media and government.

We randomly found them independently from each other 5 years later.

To suggest they have been under mind control for 5 years just hoping someone like CIT would find them AND hook up with the cops is downright comical.

If THIS is how far you have to go to doubt our research you really must be in turmoil over this.

Why does the fact that 9/11 has been proven to be an inside job bother you so much?



Are you trying to tell me there's no way they could arrange these people to be found and look natural when they're capable of all you argue? When it's all instant, the massive physical fakery was planned in advance. When videos are doctored it's cause it was in perp hands for years. When its witnesses coming forth with years to have been approached suddenly THAT makes no sense?

They did nothing to counteract their story except perhaps get some witnesses to lie and leave the rest to you guys. It must be insanely difficult work.

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Your logic is so backwards that it's frightening.

The perps do not gain from staging a massive conspiracy to prove their story false!

If they went through all the trouble of physically having a 757 hit the building there would not be a reason on earth to plant operatives to convince people otherwise.

This conspiracy within a conspiracy concept is infinitely less logical than what the evidence shows.

If your faking the fake flight path evidence theory were true it STILL proves 9/11 an inside job but the notion is illogical and purely based on conjecture.

Whether or not you admit it there are SERIOUS issue with the physical evidence from the lack of debris, undamaged foundation, ridiculous c-ring hole, generator trailer that doesn't match up, not to mention irreconcilable FDR.

Wherever we turn there are issues with the official story and now that this has been continuously corroborated by eyewitnesses the implications are clear.

ALL the eyewitnesses saw the plane on the north side.

You STILL have not provided a single account that directly refutes this.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Not ONE scratch on the hood of that cab means that someone bashed it in..but NO light pole crashed thru it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that a 200 plus pound light pole could fly through the air, crash into a moving vehicles windshield, come to a stop when the car sopts, is removed by hand...and not to leave ONE scratch on the hood?? How?

That alone proves that the cab is a set up; that cab driver is either an agent or was paid to cooperate in the ' war games ' and to keep telling the same story as best he could from now on. I would believe that before I would believe that a light pole could crash thru a windshield without leaving one scratch on the hood.


This fabricated belief system about the light pole and the hood is an example of arguing from a position of incredulity.

Please explain what physical law requires an object that hits the windshield to also hit the hood.

The diameter of the light pole was small enough to penetrate the windshield. It approached the windshield from above. It was sheared from the base so it could have approached the windshield at any conceivable angle. There is nothing from a physical standpoint that would require it to hit the windshield AND the hood.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
You guys do know tthere were multiple explosions at the Pentagon, right?
Here's one of them:



So why do you think Lloyd removed that detail from his account?

Every time after the initial Survivor Fund story he made a point to say how "quiet" it was.

He said it to us multiple times.

In fact he specifically said that he fell while removing the pole because the top bent part of the pole "flipped" as they were removing it and that he did not hear any explosions.


Hmmm... good Q. At first it was plane, pole, stop, get out, remove, explosion. Later it was silence, right, with no mention of the explosion? Does he explicitly say 'no explosions?' If so, was this after people had cited this as a 'discrepancy?' Was he possibly making himself more or less believable for some reason?

I DO NOT take Looyd's accounts as pure truth, but I don't think this proves anythng in partcular. He could be playing with you guys. Could be Icke got to him on seeing a photo of his book on the backseat, and contacted his fan to recruit him into a disinfo campaign - 'just mess with people, change your story, say suspicious things..." Or he could just be a wily huy having fun messing with people. Or he could be part of the fabrication psyop as you've deduced.

These are all possibilities that must be considered when looking at any oddities in his account.



More conspiracies within conspiracies.

So now David Icke put him up to it!


Unreal.

You go from being incredulous at the staging of events to creating completely ludicrous versions of staging.

This is you simply refusing to accept the implications of the evidence and going off on a tangent to cast doubt and try to neutralize the info.

But you aren't fooling anyone with this.

Lloyd's account is CRITICAL to this operation as he is where the eyewitness testimony meets the beginning of the physical evidence.

He puts a human element to the entire story and makes it very hard to believe that the light poles were staged.

He is arguably the most significant witness that exists yet you are willing to simply dismiss his account as not "proving anything in particular".

Watch the interview again if you forgot but he does not mention any explosion while he allegedly removed the pole and fell down and we specifically ask him.

But the details of removing the pole after the car stopped and falling down in the process have NEVER changed.

He has stuck to that story relentlessly.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z

This fabricated belief system about the light pole and the hood is an example of arguing from a position of incredulity.

Please explain what physical law requires an object that hits the windshield to also hit the hood.

The diameter of the light pole was small enough to penetrate the windshield. It approached the windshield from above. It was sheared from the base so it could have approached the windshield at any conceivable angle. There is nothing from a physical standpoint that would require it to hit the windshield AND the hood.


The pole was 40 feet long and 247 lbs.

Lloyd claims the lighter bent top end was in the car and that the HEAVIER bottom end was over the hood.

Lloyd claims he removed the pole from the cab after it came to a stop with the pole still in it and that he fell down in the process.

The pole is much longer than the cab.

The kinetic force of a 90 ton jet is incredible.

It is impossible for Lloyd's story to be true and for the hood to remain undamaged.




posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Your logic is so backwards that it's frightening.


Sorry, didn't mean to scare you!


The perps do not gain from staging a massive conspiracy to prove their story false!


And they haven't!


If they went through all the trouble of physically having a 757 hit the building there would not be a reason on earth to plant operatives to convince people otherwise.


Unless it were a disinfo campaign to confuse people. It would be a sinister move, and not everyonewould think of that, which is why JREF types are still struggling with memory issues.


This conspiracy within a conspiracy concept is infinitely less logical than what the evidence shows.


It's actually the simplest explanation considering all the evidence.


If your faking the fake flight path evidence theory were true it STILL proves 9/11 an inside job


Que? Planted north path witnesses proves an inside job? Not necessarily, but it is highly supicious behavior. If true it would prove something.


but the notion is illogical and purely based on conjecture.


It's got a logic you don't like to see, so of course it's "illogical," and conjecture is what we shoul always do when there's not enough evidence to say for sure. So long as the conjecture doesn't conflict with the known facts.

Whether or not you admit it there are SERIOUS issue with the physical evidence from the lack of debris, undamaged foundation, ridiculous c-ring hole, generator trailer that doesn't match up, not to mention irreconcilable FDR.

twisting evidence to fit preconceived notions. Nearly all evidence points clearly to a 757 strike or perfect mimicry of such, with only a few points marginally questionable, where you focus your energies. Try this case without your witness PROOF. It don't work, so luckily you got your witnesses and now this fakery is all PROVEN, which is the only way it can be believed.


Wherever we turn there are issues with the official story and now that this has been continuously corroborated by eyewitnesses the implications are clear.

ALL the eyewitnesses saw the plane on the north side.


That's an interesting chain of logic to arrive at this conclusion.

You STILL have not provided a single account that directly refutes this.

In you estimation. Try Terry Morin, Penny Elgas, Lloyd England, Frank Probst, etc. See the denial in action, folks:
challenge
Can anybody see why I gave up on that efort?



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


In you estimation. Try Terry Morin, Penny Elgas, Lloyd England, Frank Probst, etc. See the denial in action, folks:
challenge
Can anybody see why I gave up on that efort?


You gave up the effort because you failed.

Morin COULD NOT and DID NOT specify the flight path since he wouldn't even be able to see the Pentagon or the citgo from the Navy Annex.

Morin's real life view:


Elgas does not specify the flight path.

Probst does not specify the flight path and his account of diving away 6 feet from the engine is just as absurd as Lloyd's.

Lloyd?


Of course that's the best you have.

I rest my case.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z

Everything you've stated above applies to your own arguments and conclusions. In terms of valid debate tactics, it is you who are averring an extraordinary scenario that needs to be substantiated with an analysis of all available data, not just data you deem worthy.


Incorrect. The burden of proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon is on the government and I am merely showing how they have failed.

Shifting the burden of proof is another logical fallacy so you once again YOU have failed to demonstrate critical thinking.



You claim that it's not your job to explain why the evidence contradicts the official story, yet you do exactly that in concluding that the entire operation of a grand illusion which includes an unseen flyover of the Pentagon by a 757.


Where was a flyover mentioned in this thread? This thread is about the light poles. Let me know when you plan to address the evidence within the context of the proposed discussion.



The fact that you can't reconcile all the data to fit with the official story does NOT prove your theory true.


The north side claim is not a theory. It is independently corroborated evidence. The fact that the plane was not near the poles and the fact that Lloyd's story is irreconcilable with the physical damage to his cab is not a theory. It is evidence.



In fact, in reading your posts it is YOU who base almost the entirety of your arguments from a position of incredulity. You simply don't believe that the pole could have damaged the windshield without damaging the hood. Your disbelief leads you to conclude the story is false. That is a classic example of an argument from incredulity.


Incorrect. It is a physical fact based off Lloyd's first-hand testimony when considering the length and weight of the pole in relation to the kinetic energy of a 90 ton jet traveling over 500 mph. These are facts, not conjecture.



I am addressing the evidence directly. 5 light poles were found on the ground along a path that coincides with the internal damage to the Pentagon. All witnesses, including your Citgo witnesses saw a plane. Only one witness claims the plane did NOT hit the Pentagon and instead flew over the Pentagon.


Can we agree that this is a subset of the evidence in question?


No because it is incomplete and ignores the entire point which is that ALL witnesses place the plane far from the physical damage. The north side claim is highly corroborated and not directly refuted by a single other account in the entire investigative body of evidence regardless of how many people were deceived into believing the plane hit the building.




Based on this evidence, we have not just a preponderance, but evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane hit the Pentagon per the official story.


Well no because you took it out of context of the FACT that the plane was not near the physical damage and therefore can not be what created it.



* All but ONE witness testified that the plane hit the Pentagon. 100% of all witnesses testified that there was indeed a plane.


Incorrect. Very few of the reported witnesses were able to physically see the alleged impact so therefore cannot legitimately testify to this.



* 100% of all witnesses testified that the plane approached the face of the Pentagon at the exact location of the explosion at precisely the exact moment of the explosion.


Not many specifically say this at all but yes I agree with this statement.



* Pieces of the witnessed plane were found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn.


Some yes. Suspicously few but some. NONE have been positively identified as being from tail number N644AA.



* Radar controllers tracked the plane into the Pentagon.


Wrong. It was completely lost on radar as early as 8:56 and ATC even though it went down in the Kentucky/Ohio border.

Even the 9/11 Commission acknowledges this.
source




* The C-130 pilot visually identified FL77 per instructions from ATC.


Incorrect. He would have no way of telling the flight number, does not describe the aircraft, and specifically says that he did NOT see it hit the building or even know at first that the initial smoke he saw rising was coming from the Pentagon.

Lt. Col Steve O'Brien:


"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport."




* Civilians, including young school children and their teachers, were known to be on FL77 and have never returned to their families.


Sure. Of course this does not support the notion that the plane hit the Pentagon.



The above is just SOME of the evidence of the official story that FL77 hit the Pentagon.


None of it valid nor does it refute the evidence proving their story false.




Your evidence that FL77 flew over the Pentagon:

* One witness stated they believed the plane flew over the Pentagon.

* 4 witnesses said the plane flew to the north of the Citgo, therefore precluding the plane from hitting the light poles. (So rather than conclude the witnesses are wrong about the flight path, you conclude secret agents planted the light poles.)

* The FDR data doesn't match up with the downed light poles based on your analysis, even though the same perps who would have planted the poles could have created a corroborating FDR but chose not to.

* Based on the limited photos you have access to, and based on your own incredulity, the lack of perceived foundation damage precludes that FL77 hit the Pentagon.

So try these rules of debate...

a) 3 of your 4 witnesses provide internally contradictory evidence for your flyover theory. This means that something they claimed to witness is wrong -either the north of Citgo flight path or the plane hitting the Pentagon. It is your position of incredulity that leads you to conclude that they are right about the flight path but wrong about the plane hitting the Pentagon. According to the rules of debate, the testimony of 3 of your witnesses would weigh equally in favor of the official story as your flyover theory.

b) For your scenario to be true, by necessity you must begin creating a reality that is backed up by no affirmative evidence. You must concoct secret agents implementing secret plans for which there is no evidence of having ever existed. This is the equivalent to John Lear's grade-school holograph explanations based on his claim that futuristic technology was used for which there is no evidence of its existence.

Your theory requires the following evidence, which does not exist:

No evidence of poles downed before impact,
No evidence taxi driver is government agent,
No evidence of agents placing the poles on the road,
No evidence of 757 flying on opposite side of the Pentagon after flyover,
No evidence of anybody planting parts of plane inside the Pentagon,
No evidence of anybody planting parts of plane on the lawn,
No evidence of any other device other than a plane causing the explosion,
No evidence passengers on FL77 are still living,
No evidence passengers on FL77 were murdered away from Pentagon,
No evidence passengers on FL77 were fake identities a la Northwoods,
No evidence that the ATC radar data was faked to show the plane disappear from radar at the Pentagon,
No evidence of the 757 landing anywhere else, etc.

You have proven time after time that it is YOU that's approaching the entirety of the evidence from a position of incredulity in terms of the official story. You've latched onto a very small segment of data (your witnesses, 3 of whom saw the plane hit the Pentagon) and have concocted a fantasy world of scenarios that have no corroborating evidence.

And when reasonable people like myself are unconvinced of your flimsy arguments, you and your sidekick Aldo invariably degrade, insult, and attack them rather than face the fact that your arguments are lacking.

Here's the reality. In spite of your zealous efforts, you've failed to convince many people of your flyover theory. Your antagonistic and degrading attitude towards others makes you and your theory look even less substantive.



Once again you have resorted to an argument from incredulity without directly addressing the evidence relevant to the topic of discussion.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Isn't it funny how many duh-bunkers join ATS for the sole purpose of attacking me?


Hi jref!

Love you too!



How about canvassing the mods to lift my suspension?



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The pole was 40 feet long and 247 lbs.

Lloyd claims the lighter bent top end was in the car and that the HEAVIER bottom end was over the hood.

Lloyd claims he removed the pole from the cab after it came to a stop with the pole still in it and that he fell down in the process.

The pole is much longer than the cab.

The kinetic force of a 90 ton jet is incredible.

It is impossible for Lloyd's story to be true and for the hood to remain undamaged.





There is a huge difference between something being impossible and you not understanding how it could be possible. I believe this is the definition of arguing from a position of incredulity.

We can only imagine how the pole could have been sheared and fell over. This doesn't mean that either you or I can say we no exactly what happened. The photo shows the pole cut at the top. Did this send the bottom of the pole cartwheeling? Did this cause the bottom to fall over slowly? Was the base elevated compared to the road when it hit the car? Do you know anything specific about what really happened, or just what you believe should have happened?

That said, do you really expect people to believe that one unreliable witness *PROVES* a government conspiracy?

Herein lies the fallacy of your entire set up arguments. Lloyd testifies to something that doesn't make sense to you, and you conclude he's a government agent and part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Your 3 of your 4 witnesses testify that they saw the plane north of the Citgo AND hit the Pentagon, and you conclude that these witnesses were simply fooled by the grand illusion.

Guess, what? Using your same logic, your 3 witnesses' stories can't be correct and your flyover theory also be correct. This means you really have only 1 witness, not 4 as you repeatedly claim.

Honestly, Craig, the more you try to explain your theory the more bizarre and implausible it seems. In your reality, if a 60-year old cab driver tells a story that doesn't make sense, your only conclusion is that he's a government agent and that a team of government agents planted fabricated light poles?

And you still haven't addressed the point of my previous post -why fake the downed light poles at all? And especially, why damage a taxi with a hammer and drag a 240 pound light pole out from behind the bushes when it does nothing to further the so-called illusion, and risks exposing the entire operation?

Personally, I think it's abhorrent and racist that you're accusing Lloyd of being a co-conspirator to mass murder with NOTHING to back up your accusations.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I know Craig can fight his own battles and I'm not defending him, but I want to respond anyway to a few o fyour points:


5 light poles were found on the ground along a path that coincides with the internal damage to the Pentagon.

That is the problem - the internal damage fits better with an approach North of the Citgo gas station. I think even CL agrees with that.


Radar controllers tracked the plane into the Pentagon.

It is my understanding that Flight 77 was below RADAR coverage, which is why they sent the C130 after it.


The FDR data doesn't match up with the downed light poles based on your analysis, even though the same perps who would have planted the poles could have created a corroborating FDR but chose not to.

Odd, don't you think?


No evidence of any other device other than a plane causing the explosion

1) The security tapes show a white smoke trail behind something indistinguishable as a 757. 757s don't produce white smoke trails.

2) Let's see the other 80 videos (some of which contain fantastic angles of the Pentagon) that clearly show a 757 hitting the building. What's that? We can't? WHY NOT? This argument goes away if we do. What are they hiding??



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I know Craig can fight his own battles and I'm not defending him, but I want to respond anyway to a few o fyour points:


5 light poles were found on the ground along a path that coincides with the internal damage to the Pentagon.

That is the problem - the internal damage fits better with an approach North of the Citgo gas station. I think even CL agrees with that.


I have to correct you here.

The internal damage lines up exclusively with a south side flight path and the light poles.

This is why we know the plane could not have hit the building.





They lined all the damage up perfectly.

Unfortunately for them the plane veered fatally off course at the last moment.

This is why the plane had to bank over the Navy Annex.

Even high profile witnesses like Penny Elgas and Mike Walter report the bank.

The bank is 100% contradictory to the official story.

Our newest north side witness that we haven't released yet had a perfect view of the bank and describes it in detail.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z
Personally, I think it's abhorrent and racist that you're accusing Lloyd of being a co-conspirator to mass murder with NOTHING to back up your accusations.




Ok Bobert.

Since we have never mentioned his race you have just exposed YOURSELF as a racist for even considering something so absurd.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
@Craig: I'm feeling like I've stepped into a parallel universe where details are slightly altered. Hmmm..... anyways - I stand corrected.
I thought the physical damage was more in line with the northern approach path. My bad.


Personally, I think it's abhorrent and racist that you're accusing Lloyd of being a co-conspirator to mass murder with NOTHING to back up your accusations.

Whatever....
Re-read what he wrote, then listen to what he said, and compare notes. You know how to do that, right? You'll see this little thing they call a discrepancy. There are no discrepancies in the truth.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITNo because it is incomplete and ignores the entire point which is that ALL witnesses place the plane far from the physical damage.



Craig, you know this is a false statement you just made. All witnesses do NOT place the plane far from the physical damage. It's just that you want to discount those that do, like Lloyd England, because you don't think his story is accurate.

You also repeatedly dodge the most pertinent questions regarding the actual evidence. How many people witnesses a 757 fly over the Pentagon?

What you have displayed is faulty deductive reasoning based entirely on an arbitrary judgment of which witnesses are credible and which are not. Moreover, you even go as far as to choose which part of a witnesses story is credible, and which part must be mistaken, all to conveniently fit your flyover theory that you seem to want to dismiss because it's not in the context of this thread.

In other words, you decided which evidence to consider, and based your conclusions on your own selective filtering of the evidence.

Let's simplify this.

Either the plane that everybody said they saw hit the Pentagon or it flew over it. Those are the only two choices. Multiple witnesses, including those who claimed the north of Citgo path, said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Your only evidence to refute this is that you decided Lloyd's story doesn't make sense (which still doesn't refute the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon), and you decided that the three north-of-Citgo witnesses were mistaken about the plane hitting the Pentagon, but not mistaken about the plane's flight path.

Using your own witnesses and your own logic, I conclude that the triple-corroboration of eye-witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon proves beyond all doubt that the 757 really did hit the Pentagon.

By the way, just hypothetically, if one of your witnesses recanted their north-of-Citgo flight path story would that mean they were lying or mistaken?

Also, being the super-sleuth, investigative journalist that you claim to be, would you like to fill everybody in on the research you've conducted into Lloyd's background and history that would corroborate that he's actually a government operative?

PS... the racist comment was meant to be sarcastic and to show you how easy it is for somebody to make a false conclusion about you, the same way you have about Lloyd. I know that you are not racist.

The disgust at your accusations that Lloyd is an accomplice to mass murder, based on nothing more than your own distorted belief system, still stands.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Um, wow, this thread got active. I can't see where its gone way off topic. Good times.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If you didn't actually say that I argued it then you have place bringing it up in this discussion.


Fair enough.

Realy tho, should I start a new thread saying that I wouldn't argue that? I really wouldn't argue that. But I apologize if anybody did percieve the apparent insiniuendo as your argument.


Suggesting that they had control over traffic of a single highway during the operation of an operation that they created is NOT even close to the same as suggesting they "totally controlled" every single human that was present even 5 years later when we are there looking for witnesses.


Honestly, I certainly view the "perps" as being control freaks. In fact, most related to all possible motives for a "9/11 Conspiracy" would be the result of said paradigm. Your language, to me, spoke of the same. If there was a "conspiracy" then 'you' can bet that they would have agents in place there, as well as anywhere else of strategic value. The fact that "they" were so prepared to gather the security tapes demonstrates that they had already considered the location.

From there, assuming there was a conspiracy, then it's irrational, in my view, to assume that they aren't "watching" 9/11 "Truthers", myself included. In such a case, then they would have been tapping the phone of yourself and Merc, and with the gathered intel would have provocatuer agents ready in advance to be ready to answer your questions.

That was my reasoning for that proposition anyways.


How did they know we would talk to the cops and Edward Paik also?


I'm not sure how you 'dug up' the Pentagon Police. Haven't seen that stated anywhere yet. Isn't Edward an immigrant? He could be an agent from the "School of the America's. During Operations Gladio/CONDOR they would send terrorist agents, trained at the SotA's, from South America over to Europe to perform assassinations and other terrorist acts so that if caught they would be hard to investigate. It's so sad that we can't trust much of anything thanks to our grossly corrupted Estavlishment.


Your conspiracy theory here is way more complex and absurd then anything I have suggested.


Not really. It's actually quite simple. So simple in fact that it makes explaining a highly complex subject a simple matter worth rilling up actionable energy. I'm not even saying in absolutes that you or other Pentagon theorists are wrong. Instead I'm just testing out how rock solid the issue is in assessing how far I should consider pushing my supplimentary arguement which doesn't disprove or prove anything, other than action is justified, in the most simplest terms possible.


That was you making up things I didn't claim showing your dishonest approach to discussion. Don't do it again.


The mind only memorizes in approximations. This discourse, and my PC access, has been sporatic, so I hope you can forgive some of my generalizations.



So that's a 14 minute window within which they had to work. Do we know how many other official cars & "traffic controllers" were in the visible area (on the road there with them)?

Nope. Impossible to find out and not really an issue as the feds could do whatever they wanted without question.


Well, to a certain degree. This is a limited area wher ewithin minutes people were rushing out to help out, where many exit doors faced the highway section as a matter of fact.


Most normal commuters and the average public in general are not part of this conspiracy world and the "chance" that one would notice ANYTHING out of the ordinary throughout the entire course of this very complex operation is obviously a chance the perps were willing to take.


But highway, Pentagon and etc relevent police would. People whose ruotines are these areas and their lives are based on observation. I wouldn't say "zero chance" for the rest of the sheeple out there either; when you're bogged down in traffic you tend to observe things in a much richer form.


That is the nature of any lie. You risk getting caught.


Which is why I don't understand just having the patsy pilots just crash it, or the E4-B jet just guide them there, or why mess with poles at all and have the plane go where it goes, or why not just release the damn NTSB reports/etc to wrap up the case. My persistence in 'my' dichotomy isn't self-serving or irrational.


EVEN IF people noticed a pole or two on the ground it would not matter just like it doesn't matter that Willie Rodrigez and others experienced bombs in the basement of the wtc.


My point is that we'd hear about it. I won't argue that virtually ALL related whistle-blowers on all levels haven't been ignored by the masses/etc.


The light poles have only become a point of 9/11 scrutiny as a result of our work. They were rarely mentioned at all in passing by some conspiracy sites before that but the mainstream media and all official reports have always ignored them.


I thought this thread up on my own accord. And it wasn't even directed at CIT. This was a understanding seeking ordeal. I really don't even read conspiracy sites analysis'. I have seen all of the videos anyways. But I mostly go from the "facts" and "info" that I know as I articulate my way thru the fog of the edutainmentsphere.


1. Where do you get this "thousands" number? How many would have noticed the hidden light poles? Answer: not thousands.


That's a number I'd attribute to any busy highway section, alone. On Saturdays the local Ron paul Meetup group goes to thsi one busy intersection from tiem to time. This one location has between 20,000-30,000 cars pass thru in 2 hours, on Saturday. Highways packed with cars move tons of people in short time. Then there's everybody who could look out the Pentagon windows still, perhaps. The people running out. The recue workers. The people driving by until they were blocked and sent someplace else. Etc.


2. My argument does not include anything out of the ordinary that they WOULD have noticed. Even if a couple people noticed a pole off to the side that is NOT a reason for alarm under any circumstances.


As long as it doesn't involve moving them all into place, I'll give you that one.


The media and all official reports have ignored the light poles. This is fact.


I'll take that as evidence that they're not even trying to debunk 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. because it's real easy to make this one very difficult. Simply do a 5+ minute report, to millions at once, and entirely focus on the ligthpoles while not mentioning the unscratched carhood and they'll all 'go back to sleep'.


They believed the official story. They believed the plane hit the poles even though they didn't see it happen. THIS WAS MADE 100% CLEAR.


I watched your well produced film a few times, but it has been awhile. I honestly can't recall having this issue cleared up or directly discussed. It seems it would have been more memorable this vast contradiction.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
To the poster who says that we are all suffering from a bad case of incredulity, I am a person who always looks at the ODDS involved in anything. What are the odds that a light pole that size and weight could come crashing down onto a highway, strike a moving vehicle, enter the windshield with the heavier end sticking out over the hood, stop, be extracted...and all without ONE scratch to the hood!! What are the odds?

Sure, it COULD happen, anything ' could ' happen, I suppose..the sun might blow up tonight, the two different lottery tickets in my wallet COULD both hit the grand prize today..Bush might confess his sins on TV..anything COULD happen, but the liklihood is that none of those things WILL happen, and it is beyond belief, outrageous odds, to believe that a light pole that size and shape and weight could crash thru a windshield with obvious lateral and up and down motions before stopping, and yet never touch the hood. That is NOT believeable, the odds are too far out.

If it DID happen the way Lloyd says it did, then it should be in the Book of World Records for the freakiest occurence in modern times. The physics alone would be beyond grasping to accept that as true..I cannot and will not believe that the light pole fell into that car the way it is purported, and that means a set up, no matter what.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
To the poster who says that we are all suffering from a bad case of incredulity, I am a person who always looks at the ODDS involved in anything. What are the odds that a light pole that size and weight could come crashing down onto a highway, strike a moving vehicle, enter the windshield with the heavier end sticking out over the hood, stop, be extracted...and all without ONE scratch to the hood!! What are the odds?


Apparently you need to review the concept of odds and probabilities.

Odds and probabilities refer to future events, not events that occurred. I get set up a random number generator to select a number between 1 and a trillion. What are the odds you can guess the number ahead of time? A trillion to 1, right?

But after the number has been selected, the odds no longer mean anything. A trillion to 1 number has indeed been selected.

Same principle applies to the light pole and the windshield. What the odds were before the event mean zero.

But if you want to think in terms of odds, ask yourself these questions:

What are the odds that secret agents moved the light pole from the bushes?

What are the odds that nobody saw a 757 flyover the Pentagon?

What are the odds that nobody at the Pentagon noticed the other downed light poles before the explosion?

What are the odds that Craig Ranke is the only person to discover and interview the ONLY 4 witnesses who happened to see the ahem... true flight path?

What are the odds that nobody has discovered the victims of FL 77 are actually alive and well someplace else?

What are the odds that the theoretical perps of 9/11 took the passengers on FL 77 someplace else and murdered them instead of just crashing their plane into the Pentagon?

What are the odds that the perps would even attempt to pull off the flyover illusion when they knew there would be hundreds of potential witnesses sitting in traffic beside the Pentagon?

If a missile were used, what are the odds the perps would decide to use the 757 flyover crash illusion instead of just faking the missile was launched by terrorists?

What are the odds that the light poles were planted precisely to simulate a 757 flight path, but then the actual plane that flyover missed the angle of approach?

What are the odds that the secret agents, knowing that the plane missed the angle of approach, would still follow through with the Lloyd charade and carry a light pole from the bushes in front of potential witnesses?

What are the odds that Lloyd is a government agent who posed as a cab driver just to add this tiny detail to the alleged grand illusion?

What are the odds that somebody with no prior investigative experience or skills like Craig Ranke would be the one person who discovered Lloyd's cover?

What are the odds that if the grand illusion was the way Ranke said it was, the perps didn't damage the hood along with the windshield?

What are the odds that the four witnesses Ranke trots out embellished their story to Ranke?

Knowing Ranke, what are the odds that he would actually admit it if he canvassed the area and found witnesses who contradicted his witnesses?

What are the odds that somebody like Ranke would be the only guy to unravel the greatest crime of all time?

You see, this odds thing cuts both ways. In fact, the entire principle of Occams Razor is based on this.

Is it more likely that there were government agents planting light poles and that Lloyd is a secret agent, or that maybe Lloyd is really just a taxi driver and the the 757 that EVERY witness reported seeing really did hit the light poles and crash into the Pentagon.

You tell me, of the above two scenarios, which has the higher odds?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join