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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by robert z


You know as well as I do that the only way witnesses could conclusively put the plane north or south of the Citgo was if they were at the Citgo when it flew over. The fact that there were not an abundance of witnesses in the position to make this judgment is not conclusive.



Of course it's conclusive.

ALL of them that WERE in the position to tell independently report the same thing.

How many independently corroborated accounts make an "abundance"?

How many would it take for you to determine it "conclusive" and what is your reason for choosing that number?

You see the notion that they are all simply "mistaken" so drastically in the exact same way is not logical.

It does not matter exactly how many there are the fact that they all report the plane in the same place is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.



I understand that this is your position, however, that does not make it a valid conclusion.

Let me illustrate by way of a story.

When I was about 9 years old I went to a World Series game with my dad. A critical play occurred when a ball was hit down the right field line. From where I was sitting it seemed obvious that it hit the foul pole and should have been a home run.

Unfortunately, the umpire called it foul and 99% of the stadium began booing.

So just out of curiosity, my father and I trekked out to right field to the exact section where the ball hit. We started asking the fans in the front rows if the ball hit the foul pole.

Guess what?

About half the fans said it did, and the other half said it did NOT!

How could this be? The same reality was witnessed by people within 30 feet of the foul pole, yet half of them said the ball hit behind the pole and did not hit the pole. The other half insisted it hit the pole.

I bring this story up because it reminds me of the Citgo witnesses. There are internal contradictions in their stories, and with each other. It seems like most reasonable people, even die-hard truthers, understand this.

Bottom line is that you will have a hard time using somebody who saw the plane crash into the Pentagon to convince people that the plane flew over the Pentagon.




posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
If no pole went thru the windshield, then the damage to his car had to have been done some other way, which raises its own questions. So it seems something entered his car on the passenger's side. I agree a 400 foot pole COULD enter without scratching to hood if it were flying sideways near-straight in. The heavy end in, the top would stick outt leaning against the dash and likely pointing up. Heavy end out, it's likely come to rest across the dash and hood, possibly scratching it but more lkely leaving a simple dent.

I have one question for Craig:
What proof do we have that it was really the min pole, and not the upper truss, which is far lighter and only six feet long? Sorry if that was already explained, but other than Lloyd's word, any photos or solid clues against that possibility?



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

If no pole went thru the windshield, then the damage to his car had to have been done some other way, which raises its own questions. So it seems something entered his car on the passenger's side. I agree a 400 foot pole COULD enter without scratching to hood if it were flying sideways near-straight in. The heavy end in, the top would stick outt leaning against the dash and likely pointing up. Heavy end out, it's likely come to rest across the dash and hood, possibly scratching it but more lkely leaving a simple dent.

I have one question for Craig:
What proof do we have that it was really the min pole, and not the upper truss, which is far lighter and only six feet long? Sorry if that was already explained, but other than Lloyd's word, any photos or solid clues against that possibility?


You can not honestly ignore Lloyd's claims and make up your own story.

By doing so you are dismissing all of the confirmed first-hand testimony that we have reported (citgo witnesses AND Lloyd) and simply making up your own version of the event that fits with the official story.

How is that logical?

Even if Lloyd's story made sense it has been proven to be a fabrication by the citgo witness testimony.

But it doesn't make sense.

Lloyd is very explicit with details. Did you even watch his interview?

We debated with Russell Pickering which "piece" of the pole Lloyd was referring to for months before we interviewed Lloyd and got the story from him first-hand.

Pickering had conducted a phone interview (unrecorded) before and he made the assumption that Lloyd had to be talking about the small piece.

Clearing this detail up was the ENTIRE PURPOSE of interviewing him in person.

Lloyd specifically describes how the top bent part of the pole "went all the way through to the back seat" and that the heavier base end of the pole was over the hood.

Lloyd specifically claims that the top bent part "flipped" as he and the silent stranger pulled it out from the back seat which is what he claims caused him to fall down with the "pole on top" of him.

NONE of these details would have taken place if it was merely the tiny 20lb top arm of the pole that a single person can easily lift with one hand.



Those are a lot of details to embellish for no reason.

He even ILLUSTRATED the long piece of the pole in the car.


Plus.....it's unlikely that the interior damage would be caused by the top arm:


Remember too how the passenger seat was not ripped or knocked all the way down:


First-hand testimony is valid EVIDENCE. You can not simply dismiss evidence because you don't like the implications.




[edit on 10-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z

I bring this story up because it reminds me of the Citgo witnesses. There are internal contradictions in their stories, and with each other. It seems like most reasonable people, even die-hard truthers, understand this.


For your analogy to be relevant half of the witnesses at the citgo would have to disagree and believe they saw the plane on the south side.

Your analogy is a good one though but to make sense with the situation 100% the fans would have to be in agreement.

I think in that case it would be clear that the umpire made a bad call.

But in regards to your point that I quoted......I have no idea what "internal contradictions" you are talking about.

There are none. They all saw the plane on the north side.

This is indisputable.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Again, I come back to the following point in the argument: if it all occurred as "they" say it did, why all the secrecy and fabrication?


[ broken record ]

* FDR data - it makes no sense for this to be tampered with, yet it was
* The whole thing with the light poles - what the hell???? So far none of that adds up (either the taxi or the lack of damage to the aircraft)
* North/South flight path - again, why the confusion (I mean in the two versions of events, not the actual testimonies)
* Lack of video evidence

[ / broken record ]




[ spanner in works ]

What if the smoke trail was actually fuel leaking out the wings in the final moments? It was caught in a 500 MPH wind, so will hang there for the most part.

[ / spanner in works ]

[edit on 10-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Did I kill this thread or what?



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Nah MoD, it's just run out of steam for the moment.

Craig: I still haven't studied Lloyd's case closely enough, but listening again it's clear he's talking about the main part. If he's not telling the truth, then it's a pretty good fabrication and shows a good imagination. Ig he's telling the truth, that's troubling, but I'd need to have it proved there was no dent in the hood popped out later. That seems as likely to me as scratches. And if his account is all we have to go on, I'll have to remain agnostic on what happened there.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
@CL:
Thought I'd killed it for a minute.


I thought Craig posted some photos of Lloyds cab on the highway with the Pentagon behind, and..... no damage to the hood (it is quite easy to see).

EDIT: My bad - it was IIB.



[edit on 12-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   
No scratches. Scrathhes if it touched the hood while moving in, dent only if it went in all above and then fell down acros the hood. Dents in hoods can be popped out right away by a driver who takes pride. At least on modern cars, dunno about the Town Car - I'm not a car guy. And this is all barring the possibility the end really was sticking up in the air and seriously not touching the hood ever, like Lloyd says, right? This seems unlikely but possible.

looking... hmm, distantly possible, maybe...

[edit on 12-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 12-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I don't want to get in the middle of what you guys have going on but I would like to add, once again as a fence-sitter... The cab in itself is very suspicious. No way would a pole that is heavy enough to "trap' you under itself is going to staylodged in a windshield and vinyl front seats. Also the damage in itself is petty. The hood is SEAMLESS. The roof is UNTOUCHED. That much weight doesn't just stab into a font seat and stay... It must have been wedged in there so tight for it not to be laying on his hood that there is NO WAY they could remove it with 2 average men. Doesn't feel right to me.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Agreed. Although Lloyd's account does not support it, I think the smaller part going in theory still fits better. That or the manipulated pre-paced accomplice theory.


Russell Pickering:
"Very simply put.........

Lloyd was hit by a smaller piece of pole number TWO. He came to a stop in front of the base of pole number one already on the ground. He and/or somebody removed the smaller piece of pole TWO from his window and laid it near the passenger rear quarter panel. Then he may have tried to move the large base of pole one laying in front of him resulting in the scratch on the asphalt there. He wanted to leave but could not start his car because the fuel cutoff switch triggered from the impact of the smaller piece of pole TWO impacting the back seat.

He has confused, combined and embellished the different elements of the events."

source


[edit on 13-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Makes more sense that a fragment of a light pole hit his windshield instead of the entire lightpole. I couldn't imagine the kind of force it would take to wedge a rigid piece of steel into the vinyl seats with almost non damage and it being jarred loose by 2 average men. Steel is HEAVY and the force that caused it to come down must have been incredible. Too incredible for the windshield story to be factual.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
it's actually aluminum, but the point is still valid.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Agreed. Although Lloyd's account does not support it, I think the smaller part going in theory still fits better. That or the manipulated pre-paced accomplice theory.


Russell Pickering:
"Very simply put.........

Lloyd was hit by a smaller piece of pole number TWO. He came to a stop in front of the base of pole number one already on the ground. He and/or somebody removed the smaller piece of pole TWO from his window and laid it near the passenger rear quarter panel. Then he may have tried to move the large base of pole one laying in front of him resulting in the scratch on the asphalt there. He wanted to leave but could not start his car because the fuel cutoff switch triggered from the impact of the smaller piece of pole TWO impacting the back seat.

He has confused, combined and embellished the different elements of the events."

source



Ok Mr. self proclaimed "old school pre-LC LIHOPPER".

Your fortitude for historical B.S. has exposed the dirty laundry.

You are citing a hypothesis that Aldo Marquis suggested to Russell Pickering for the sake of discussion during an ongoing debate about Lloyd at the OLD Loose Change forum way back in July 2006 BEFORE our trip and interview with Lloyd here:
thread in old forum




So we ALL went to Arlington to clear this up once and for all direct with Lloyd.

It got cleared up.

But in the Final Cut "test screening" that I saw on 9/10 this year Dylan revealed how he has chosen to ignore the evidence from all our hard work and straight up EDIT OUT all the dubious details

He ignores Lloyd's testimony and reverts back to Aldo's old assertion from before we even talked with Lloyd and even goes so far as to create a high quality animation depicting this happening.

This is misrepresenting the evidence.

If you don't like the implications of someone's testimony it is not honest to edit out the details and present a made up scenario.

I hope he changes his mind for the actual release.






[edit on 13-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Craig, Lyte old buddy, I must say you have some arguments. Very interesting indeed, but I'm not so sure they prove a 9/11 Conspiracy. They absolutely prove that the Pentagon issue is highly debatable, which brings me to my problem...

In the effort to get a new investigation, which includes reaching as many people as possible, in short time, wouldn't be easier to find another way of explaining the subject? I mean, how many thousands of pages of debate have occured at ATS alone over the Pentagon issue, when it can all be summed in in laymans terms that even "Skeptics" couldn't disagree warrant new investigations?

I ask because it can be summed up in far less debatable, if not undebatable terms, meanwhile using the broad absolutes of proven total Conspiracy approach encourgaes debate and keeps the Skeptics thrilled to have some "nutters" to "prove" worng. I mean, c'mon, most people don't even bother talking spcifics about the Pentagon, meaning it's essentially a dead issue not worth even hassling with in the minds of most.

So should the Truther masses continue to push in absolute certainty of the Pentagon proving a 9/11 Conspiracy (which in effect causes diversionary debate away from the laundy list of other noncontroversial 9/11 issues), or more genrally just avoid the issue, or would it be best to derive a new dichotomy that can be rolled off the tongue almost like a soundbite which can't even be debated?

There's more than one way to skin a cat, comes to mind.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 



IIB, looks like we are on the same track tonight.... this is what I posted on another thread:

All it takes is one tiny distortion of the truth and the official story propagandists use it to discredit the entire truth movement.

This is why I would love to see Craig Ranke go from boasting that he has irrefutable proof of a conspiracy to saying something like he has enough probable cause to investigate further.

Follow this logic. I will use Ranke just as an example.

If Ranke says he has incontrovertible proof of an inside job to somebody who is an official story believer, and that person does not agree that the proof is undeniable as Ranke says, then the official story believer is left defending the official story. In other words, Ranke has created an all or nothing scenario in which the official story believer is forced to chose a side based on Rankes bold claims.

Now if Ranke just said he has enough proof that there is probable cause to investigate further the discrepancy between witnesses to the north of Citgo flight path and the fallen pole flight path, he could get an official story believer to agree that there is probable cause to investigate further.

In other words, trying to convince average people who believe the official story that it was an inside job planned by Bush is like seeing a pretty girl and asking her to marry you while standing in line at Starbucks. You have to go through the process of meeting her, going on a first date, etc.

Same with trying to convince people that it was an inside job somehow. You cannot just claim it was an inside job, PLUS give even debatable evidence for your case. People will laugh at you, just like the pretty girl at Starbucks would laugh at you if you asked her to marry you while standing in line.



Craig, are you getting this?

You claiming you have irrefutable proof of a conspiracy is like planting a big wet kiss on the pretty girl in line at Starbucks. You are not likely to be very successful with this approach.

You DO have enough to get anybody to doubt their beliefs for a moment or two. By forcing them to pick between changing their entire belief system or defending it right away, you are forcing people away from what you are trying to persuade them to believe.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by robert z
If Ranke says he has incontrovertible proof of an inside job to somebody who is an official story believer, and that person does not agree that the proof is undeniable as Ranke says, then the official story believer is left defending the official story. In other words, Ranke has created an all or nothing scenario in which the official story believer is forced to chose a side based on Rankes bold claims.

Now if Ranke just said he has enough proof that there is probable cause to investigate further the discrepancy between witnesses to the north of Citgo flight path and the fallen pole flight path, he could get an official story believer to agree that there is probable cause to investigate further.

In other words, trying to convince average people who believe the official story that it was an inside job planned by Bush is like seeing a pretty girl and asking her to marry you while standing in line at Starbucks. You have to go through the process of meeting her, going on a first date, etc.

Same with trying to convince people that it was an inside job somehow. You cannot just claim it was an inside job, PLUS give even debatable evidence for your case. People will laugh at you, just like the pretty girl at Starbucks would laugh at you if you asked her to marry you while standing in line.


Very good analysis z.
To use your metaphor, it's like proposing marriage to the girl at starbucks who, just to make the metaphor work, just suffered massive amnesia. Then instead of going thru the process where she might discover you have nothing much to offer, you take her home under duress claiming you're already happily married and trying to keep her in that illusion with the fierceness of your own conviction and that it's been PROVEN by four witnesses who were undeniably at the wedding, though each describes it differently.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I report evidence.

The implications from that evidence are what they are.

If that is too difficult for you or the general public to handle and you think beating around the bush or being ambiguous is a better way to sell the information I simply don't agree.

I have no intentions of duping the American public into a one night stand with fake chivalry.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Very good analysis z.
To use your metaphor, it's like proposing marriage to the girl at starbucks who, just to make the metaphor work, just suffered massive amnesia. Then instead of going thru the process where she might discover you have nothing much to offer, you take her home under duress claiming you're already happily married and trying to keep her in that illusion with the fierceness of your own conviction and that it's been PROVEN by four witnesses who were undeniably at the wedding, though each describes it differently.



Make the pretty girl Angelina Jolie and I think the metaphor is complete. By the way, who performed the ceremony, Lloyd or the mysterious Opus Dei priest?



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I report evidence.

The implications from that evidence are what they are.

If that is too difficult for you or the general public to handle and you think beating around the bush or being ambiguous is a better way to sell the information I simply don't agree.

I have no intentions of duping the American public into a one night stand with fake chivalry.



Herein lies your problem, Craig.

Yes, you report evidence. But you do so much more. You tell everybody what YOU think the implications MUST be without entertaining any possibility of alternate explanations.

In other words, for each piece of evidence you report, there is a wide spectrum of inferences that can be made. Actually, be accurate, evidence does not imply anything. What you are really referring to are your own inferences.

The arrogance that you display even in this post, implying that your reality is the only reality, and people who do not agree with you somehow cannot handle the truth... well that just exemplifies why you have failed to put so much as even a tiny dent into the official story. Heck, you are barely a blip inside the Truth Movement.

If there are indeed 9/11 conspirators who are hoping never to be caught, I would respectfully suggest that you, and John Lear, are helping their cause in the manner you present your conclusions.

So what do you want, Criag? To be a Dylan mini-me in the world of the 9/11 Truth Movement, or to actually make a difference? From an outside perspective it looks more like the mini-me (or should it be Dylan wannabe?)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join