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: 7
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
double post.







[edit on 14-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 


You don't even believe 9/11 was an inside job!

I have no delusions that people like you will be convinced of anything just like there are still robots who believe the Iraq war was the right choice.

We are confident in our assertions because they are heavily researched and backed up with hard evidence.

If people who have not heavily researched the information or reviewed the evidence we are presenting think the conclusions of investigators who HAVE done the legwork are "arrogant" so be it.

Our work is only gaining attention and the evidence we present will never go away and has already changed the landscape of the Pentagon discussion forever.

Have you watched our new presentation?

It has had 7,000 views in 2 days.

CIT has barely gotten started.

We have no intentions of being Dylan Avery.

He is not a researcher nor does he accurately present information.

He is an admitted "storyteller" even before "documentarian".

There is a reason he solicited us to be research consultants to final cut.

The fact that he has rejected our recommendations and embraced those of Russell Pickering will not fare well for LTW.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


You don't even believe 9/11 was an inside job!

I have no delusions that people like you will be convinced of anything just like there are still robots who believe the Iraq war was the right choice.


For somebody who claims to be so smart you certainly are a slow learner.

So who exactly are you trying to convince, Craig? From where I sit it looks like you are trying to convince Craig if not the people who do not believe it was an inside job?

To be even more specific, what exactly do you think that you personally bring to the truth table? Your exclusive conclusions and extrapolations of the evidence?

The sum total of what you have accomplished is recording the videos of the witnesses. The conclusions you have made based on these witnesses have not accomplished a thing.

You get the difference between evidence and conclusions? Your conclusions are no better than the conclusions John Lear makes about no planes being used in the attacks.

Does it stroke your ego to cite 7,000 views on YouTube? I can imagine you being called in for interviews 20 years from now on cable shows doing fluff pieces on ufos, bigfoot, and 9/11. You will still be going on about how your witnesses provide smoking gun proof of an inside job. I guess 9/11 will take over the place of the Kennedy assassination for this generation.

Claiming your witnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon as evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the Pentagon has not convinced many people, buddy.

Apparently you are either too stubborn to see things for what they are and change your approach. Too much adulation from the die hard truthers to walk away from probably.

Here is the ultimate question, Craig: Do you think that you can ever be wrong or mistaken about anything?



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z

Here is the ultimate question, Craig: Do you think that you can ever be wrong or mistaken about anything?



Certainly and this has been the case many times throughout out my personal investigation.

I used to believe in a missile or global hawk and now understand that the evidence proves I was wrong.

Same with the A-3 sky warrior JT8D engine hub nonsense put forth by Karl Schwartz.

But some details have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt such as the notion that the plane was on the north side of the citgo.

The implications of this are clear.

You spew hollow rhetoric focusing on me personally as a blatant attempt to derail the discussion.

This is typical of our detractors and doesn't faze me.

The evidence stands and you have offered NOTHING to even begin to refute it.

Let me know if you ever have any original research to offer this discussion otherwise it's clear that our exchange has ran it's course.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


What I'm still unclear on is, in your view, what did hit the Pentagon? I mean SOMETHING did, right?

But whatever it "was", it still takes John Doe to the question: Why not just use the damn Boeing? Or the light pole flight path? Or just fake the NTSB reports and 100/whatever camera angle videos since all the extreme effort? And so on... Ad Infinitum... So they'll just go back to sleep... "no conspiracy"... the issue of them toying with us and my other arguments get overshadowed because the "Conspiracy" doesn't add up.

I mean, unless you have some powerful argumets to those simple questions. It really boils down to a simple deduction as stated above, which probably most people faced with the Pentagon go thru, or endless debate to attempt to make sense of it... because there are some good arguments and evidence as you've shown here, but it still doesn't add up or make sense.

Remember that the vast majority of people out there are not motivated to believe a 9/11 "Conspiracy", not to even do a whole lot of research into complex subjects. Those 2 combined are a disaster when you're dealing with an issue that one could literally spend thousands of hours researching and debating yet still not reach solid conclusions which have no contradctions or ambiguity. Meanwhile, 6 years have passed and the event keeps getting further and further away.

I'll add that my "Third Dichotomy" approach doesn't leave it at just doing things like not releasing NTSB reports to fuel conspiracies, but it also provides for them going to other lengths to not only fuel diversionary conspiracy theories, but to also ensure that its literally impossible to reach solid actionable conclusions on the diversionary issues (Pentagon, Flight 93, WTC, etc "Loose Change Subjects"). As you're clearly more educated on the Pentagon issue as a whole, I hope that you might take some time to reflect and entertain my notion with your broader view of the subject. My notion being that it was set up to be endlessly debatable, divesionary, regardless of what actually happened... JFK all over again only this time 50 times more complex and debatable... 21st Century USA style.


[edit on 14-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Nothing hit the Pentagon.

The damage was created with pre-planted explosives.

Ironically enough Russell Pickering has the best hypothesis for the c-ring hole:

www.pentagonresearch.com...

This way they could make sure to have 100% control over the damage to their own headquarters.

It was the exact same M.O. as at the WTC.

Real planes used as psychological weapons while the actual destruction was covertly implemented with pre-planted explosives.

This guaranteed the destruction would be accomplished with surgical precision which was particularly important at their own headquarters that they obviously had no intentions of completely demolishing.

That was the primary difference between the Pentagon and WTC, why they didn't want a plane to hit the Pentagon, and why there is no video footage of the Pentagon attack.

If they physically did what they reported they would surely capitalize off the additional psychological benefits that video footage of the event would bring them.

To NOT do this would counter the entire purpose of the operation.

The fact that this was an unoccupied portion of their own headquarters makes the entire notion that they could plant explosives and a few plane parts extremely simple compared to what was pulled off in New York.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Well, if nothing hit the Pentagon, then what made the white smoke trail seen in the 5 frams video released by the DOD? There was something at ground level or just above it leaving a white trail and heading to the wall.

I personally think that a global hawk or cruise misle was used; there was for sure no plane trhere.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


Since we have a suspect the logical assumption of any investigator should be that any data that is provided for and completely controlled by the suspect should be automatically considered invalid.

Since the security video can not even be reconciled with the government provided FDR and the notion that there would have to be a visible descent angle in the plane/object/smoke plume due to the topography having a steep decline just after the Navy Annex we have hard evidence to suggest it has been manipulated.


Add that to the notion that the strange thick squiggly smoke plume only visible in one frame of one view does not even cast a shadow and it's clear this is not legitimate data:



It doesn't need to have been completely faked. The fireball could be real.

The anomalous smoke trail that nobody reported witnessing and the indistinguishable object could have been quite easily manipulated into this data.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
So why not make it look like a REAL plane, and from different angles, to ensure that everybody buys it? They are trying to convince everybody aren't they?????? They've only had 6 years now.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So why not make it look like a REAL plane, and from different angles, to ensure that everybody buys it? They are trying to convince everybody aren't they?????? They've only had 6 years now.



Why?

They HAVE convinced everybody.

The "movement" is marginalized, ridiculed, and ignored.

I agree that this manipulated video with an ambiguous object was likely put out to fuel disinfo about a missile.

But it would be infinitely more risky to blatantly fake a clear flight 77.

ETA: You see if the plane really did hit the building as reported they would have no reason on earth to put out disinfo about it.

That's where the 757 impact conspiracy theory proponent's logic completely collapses.








[edit on 14-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

ETA: You see if the plane really did hit the building as reported they would have no reason on earth to put out disinfo about it.

That's where the 757 impact conspiracy theory proponent's logic completely collapses.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]


The logic only collapses in your view because you have fallen in love with your own theory as if it the only possible reality.

For argument sake, assume the official story is true down to the asinine story about the jets flying NE to intercept phantom FL 11 that the FAA reported did not hit the WTC.

The disinfo could then be for the purpose of distracting the public from the complete incompetence that allowed the attacks to occur. It is far better to have rumors that the government shot down FL 93 and is run by evil geniuses than dumb buffoons.

Alternately, suppose FL 77 hit the Pentagon and the government was involved in a let-it-happen conspiracy. To distract from the obvious let-it-happen evidence, the government could put out made-it-happen disinfo.

Or finally, if the government was involved and was worried that they would be revealed by the Truth Movement, they could put out disinfo to bait the truthers into yapping about how there was no plane that hit the Pentagon, only to release definitive videos and evidence years later when they wanted to totally bury any credibility that the truth movement might have.

No, Craig, there are many more explanations than your simplistic view. If Lloyd can be a lying government dupe in your world view, then so could Lagasse, et al.

What you are missing is that if the government had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the attacks were successful only because of the incompetence of the government, then it would make sense that the government would put out disinfo to distract from that fact.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 


I disagree.

The government uses the media for distractions every day and certainly they would continue to do so but it would not be in their best interest to get people questioning 9/11 on ANY LEVEL if there was a LIHOP scenario.

That would definitely work against them and certainly would drive many people to question all aspects of 9/11.

They would hold the shiny object in a different place all together.

It's particularly ridiculous when you assert they would go so far as to place totally unknown and unpublished deep cover agents in gas stations and auto mechanic shops.

This runs completely counter to the LIHOP mentality.

Funny what lengths they will go to dismiss the evidence.

Of course your levels of denial are even more egregious as an Official Conspiracy Theorist.





posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
It's amazing what length some will go to manufacture evidence. And it's amazing to what extent some will use pure conjecture as evidence.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

ETA: You see if the plane really did hit the building as reported they would have no reason on earth to put out disinfo about it.

That's where the 757 impact conspiracy theory proponent's logic completely collapses.


That's the fail-point, huh? Can you even imagine alternate scenarios anymore, or is your mind so twisted with inbred certainty your brain goes blank when you try to imagine a LIHOP scenario? 'Cause your assessment shows a certain fuzziness at best.

I challenge you to go through the logic of exactly why there could be NO other possible reason whatsoever for them to keep things confused if they really had nothing to hide about the crash. Please, if you can actually wrap your brain around it, cite some possible theories you've heard around and tear them down for all to see.

Remember: if they had let it happen, or had next-to-nothing physically to hide (black boxes or RC controllers), they would have planned in advance and may have realized there would be dangerous questions to mute or divert.
ETA: The most dangerous questions are the ones people felt instinctively when they realized how convenient the whole thing turned out for the PTB. Even some of my dimmer friends could see this and wonderd about LIHOP. Only doofusses start questioning when someone shows them the 'tiny' hole in the Pentagon or the pod beneath Flight 175. And then they are shown as fools and other questions get dragged down.

You seriously can't see this?


They HAVE convinced everybody.


Not itrepid ol' YOU!


The "movement" is marginalized, ridiculed, and ignored.


Omygosh, please SAVE US! Only CIT can do it.



[edit on 16-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 16-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

That's the fail-point, huh? Can you even imagine alternate scenarios anymore


What's funny is when I watched the video with the interview that was posted earlier he pretty much spelled out a much more likely scenario than the one he's trying to sell.

It seemed like he doesn't even know it's a possibility, or if he does he ignores it. It's kinda sad that the interviewer didn't catch it and call him on it either, but it did seem like the "interviewer" shared the same political bias as well.

His entire "theory" is based on people seeing a plane on the north side of the Citgo station, and we are told that the only conclusion is that it couldn't have hit the Pentagon, so it MUST be an inside job. We hear this over and over again.

Now, I put a lot of stock into eyewitness testimony, so I don't think these people are lying, or are part of a cover-up, I think they saw what they say they did. I do think it's sad that they had to be misled to get the interview however, and even sadder have a chuckle about it, as if to be proud that someone was tricked, especially to get an "unbiased" account for a biased reason.

But, here's the kicker, later in the interview he goes on to say that flights fly over the Pentagon at the rate of 1 every 3 minutes! And that there has been evidence that possibly indicate a flight in the area at the same time as the attack!

Whoa, wait a minute here...

That totally blows away this notion of the "only" conclusion given eyewitness testimony that they saw a plane on the north side of the Citgo is that it's an inside job.

Why?

Because it's certainly just as reasonable to assume these eyewitnesses saw another plane alright, a legit flight in the area who's path was on the north side of the Citgo station as the hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon on the other side.

This actually would have the same outcome as the notion that the overflight was a distraction for the "real" cause of the explosion, as these witnesses could logically be just as distracted from a legit flight while the other plane smashed into the building.

I think that should be sufficient to prove that the "only" conclusion is that it was an inside job is false, that is absolutely *not* the case.

There is no way someone with an open mind cannot see that as a possibility given the same reasons. But, unfortunately I'm willing to bet that it won't matter, as someone who's willing to be interviewed while agreeing to be in front of an upside down American flag isn't really out for the truth, only trying to mold what they can around their own political bias.

He is right, people are pulling away from this "movement", and with good reason. A few words of professional advice from someone coming from the movie industry/mass media(big three) industry :

If you really want people to listen to you, you HAVE to be more objective.

This means willing to be open and explore other possibilities.

Do not lie or intentionally mislead people whom you are interviewing!

People will feel bad for the average Joe and whatever you're trying to accomplish will be nullified. It's disrespectful and dishonest, if you can't achieve your goals without lying then you should re-examine what it is you're doing, maybe, just maybe you're wrong.

Be more professional.

Appearing in front of upside down American flags, or wearing a shirt that say Bush Lied, etc... shows BIAS. People will pick up on that and discount anything else because of it.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

ETA: You see if the plane really did hit the building as reported they would have no reason on earth to put out disinfo about it.

That's where the 757 impact conspiracy theory proponent's logic completely collapses.


That's the fail-point, huh? Can you even imagine alternate scenarios anymore, or is your mind so twisted with inbred certainty your brain goes blank when you try to imagine a LIHOP scenario? 'Cause your assessment shows a certain fuzziness at best.


Oh god. I know you love to "imagine" things in order to make it easier to dismiss evidence that destroys your entire belief system but that is all you are doing. Of course it's "possible" that they would train deep-cover gas station attendants and auto mechanics as covert treasonous spys and leave them to be discovered 5 years later simply for disinfo purposes after a LIHOP scenario but it's not logical, beneficial to them, or a reasonable assertion on your part. It's desperation. A pathetic desperate attempt to cast doubt on hard evidence.



I challenge you to go through the logic of exactly why there could be NO other possible reason whatsoever for them to keep things confused if they really had nothing to hide about the crash. Please, if you can actually wrap your brain around it, cite some possible theories you've heard around and tear them down for all to see.


There are many ways to "confuse" people but training gas station attendants and auto mechanics to randomly sit quietly waiting for years to covertly destroy the official story that happened EXACTLY as reported would not be a logical or efficient method. The very notion of this hard core conspiracy theory is purely the result of desperation on your part to reconcile the facts.




Remember: if they had let it happen, or had next-to-nothing physically to hide (black boxes or RC controllers), they would have planned in advance and may have realized there would be dangerous questions to mute or divert.
ETA: The most dangerous questions are the ones people felt instinctively when they realized how convenient the whole thing turned out for the PTB. Even some of my dimmer friends could see this and wonderd about LIHOP. Only doofusses start questioning when someone shows them the 'tiny' hole in the Pentagon or the pod beneath Flight 175. And then they are shown as fools and other questions get dragged down.

You seriously can't see this?


These questions are not "diverted" by any of the things that "doofuses" focus on. Any attention to questions about 9/11 would lead people to other questions. Period.

As I said....OF COURSE they would make attempts to divert attention and they do it every day in the media but the notion they would do it with Robert Turcios and Edward Paik and the north side claim is beyond a reach and a clear desperate attempt by you to neutralize and dismiss the evidence.




They HAVE convinced everybody.


Not itrepid ol' YOU!


The "movement" is marginalized, ridiculed, and ignored.


Omygosh, please SAVE US! Only CIT can do it.



You and your convoluted conspiracy theories based on zero evidence sure won't!

You have really stepped up the sarcasm lately.

Getting frustrated fraud?




top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join