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.

 

Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

page: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Now that I know you won't even "put a finger" on controlled demo of building 7 I'm curious what you HAVE put your finger on that proves to you 9/11 was an inside job.

Anything?

You have 10 fingers you know.


I never was certain it was an "inside job" in the majority 'truther' version. That's just what's grown up around the issue. It happened, the people who could/should have stopped it benefitted massively, the targets chosen suited imperialist psyop goals remarkably well, and it was ruthlessly capitalized on, etc. I don't believe much of the 'proof' that's been peddled but instinctively I feel there was some inside job element somewhere and have felt that way from 7:00 am PST on 9/11/01. It could go as deep as RC and demos, but somehow I'm just not convinced. I'm not what you'd normally call a 'truther' but neither am I an 'everything's alright" OCT debunker.



How do you determine which part of the contradictory story to accept and why?


The parts that aren't contradictory, because they line up.



That answer is very telling. You have to reconcile all evidence or a deception is uncovered.

Bull. You do no such thing, dismissig whole categories with 'might have" "for all we know," etc. These are good little thought exercises but do not constitute "reconciling all avidence."


If entire evidence categories are contradictory they don't "line up". The FDR and the eyewitnesses do not "line up" with the physical evidence which has issues of it's own. All evidence MUST line up or the lie becomes exposed.


Pretty steep standard to apply to others and not yourself. "It might be" the FDR's data is 3 seconds old, and "for all we know" your witnesses were simply lying for whatever reason and the others just aren't specific enough to contradict them in your estimation.


Quite odd how you proclaim to believe 9/11 was an inside job yet insist on dismissing the evidence that proves it purely in favor of the evidence that "lines up" with the official story.


lines up with each other.



Dude you are worse than John Kerry. Talk about wishy-washy! I guess it is hard to reconcile the notion that the image would be faked if you don't even believe the building was deliberately demolished.


Might be a demo, but it seemed to me Zafar's image was faked to show no damage. I think you had read that backwards and I'm even worse than you thought.


Are you sure you believe 9/11 was an inside job?


I'm not Russell.





3. If so would you consider pre-fabricating the damage of the light poles by said "psyops crews" to be more or less believable?


Mmmm... less. By a bit. If the towers had to fall, it perhaps could not be left to chance - so the wiring, which luckily has remained under wraps. But at the Pgon, an RC or hijacked plane on the official path explains EVERYTHING except your eyewitnesses, hands down.



You completely misinterpreted my question. (I believe deliberately)

I was hypothetically referring to the complexity of both claims compared to each other.

The question isn't really effective for someone like you who doesn't even believe in controlled demolition of the towers or building 7, however, the point is that the complexity of pre-fabricating/staging the light poles (and physical damage of the Pentagon in general) is clearly minuscule compared to the incredible undertaking of a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan.



Yeah, that didn't work like you meant. But my point was that the one still makes more sens than the other, despite your attempt to equate them.




posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If you accept the FDR as valid then you prove the official story incorrect.

The data is irreconcilable with the physical damage and the security video primarily due to the reported descent angle.


ALL the evidence still converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. By your own clear admission here, Craig, you won't address all the evidence.

Best you get to work, and refute ALL of the evidence, don't you think?



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Water, mud, tiny debris, tire tracks... is it possible this stuff has filled in the scrapes, gouges and cracks here, and been wetted and flattened down to look like concrete? Would it not, to some extent, be fresh concrete itself? Yes, it's very possible.


OMG!

Fresh concrete?! You KNOW you don't believe that yet you are STILL deceptively throwing it out there to help cast doubt because you understand how damning this is to your dogmatic support of the official story.

The reason I know you don't believe it is because you have stated your knowledge these are FEMA photos taken by Jocelyn Augustino.

They are officially hosted with dates provided and everything.

I don't believe for a single second that you didn't know all images referenced in the OP of this thread were taken on September 21st 2001.

Why are you asserting that it is "very possible" they would lay fresh concrete within 10 days of the attack??

The clean up effort is obviously not finished in these images as there is tons of visible dirt and debris.


Misunderstanding. I meant to say 'in effect" fresh concrete - not literally laid concrete to even 'some extent.' I meant only the mud and sand and water and whatever. It's like concrete in that it can fill gaps and even ceement to to whatever extent.


I'm sorry Frustrated Fraud but this post was very deceptive on your part and quite representative of your typical approach to discussion of 9/11 evidence.


So now that I've cleared that up, does this still stand?





This spot was scraped clean - which might have helped level the surface. This would not cover major damage, inches-wide gouges, etc. but again, this is just inside, where the bulk of the plane is said to have ented just above grade and with generally forward momentum, doing far more damage to the second floor slab above.


You have got to be kidding. Listen to yourself! The first floor is about 14 feet and ALL damage was limited to the first two floors. But the wings, engines, and more than the bottom half of the fuselage which combined is virtually the entire mass and weight of the plane would have entered in the first floor. The upper half of the fuselage is relatively a tiny percentage of the weight of the craft.

The notion that this incredible mass would glide over the foundation AT ALL without touching it as it had to the lawn is insane.

Then I guess I'm insane cause it entered and the foundation isn't gouged open. Glancing blows only except farther in...


Is the official story really that important to you?


I like to help people see what a fraud you are, but no, it's not this important to waste this much time. There's a lot of things I'd like to do and I regret I've already wasted so much time.



If you want to really make the case, Craig, dig around for virgin floor deeper in, where it would be grinding to a halt. find some shots looking right down at cleared but un-muddied concrete in the D or C rings and show us some smoothness there. This just doesn't cut it for me.


Stop playing dumb. Stop acting like you don't know where the FEMA photo library is.

How about if YOU find a photo showing damage? Hmmmm? Having trouble are you?

Clearly you are. Jocelyn took A LOT of images of the inside of the building and of course there is more "virgin floor" deeper in.

It's your argument, not mine. I've never thought foundation damage was worth looking at - too hard to ascertain what should have and did happen. But it is interesting and I will scan these photos you dug up, try to locate the area, etc. but no time now.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
So the rebar is probably NOT the clue I first thought. But what do you think of the pile? Is it the florr or on top of it? (see my first post for a link to more photos)


It appears to be foundation concrete. I'd have to know how the pentagon is built to know for sure. But, to me it looks like something crashed into it.

p.s. I still don't think that's rebar though. It looks to be some kind of metal bar. Post-tensioning cables? Pre-tensioning cables? My opinion is it's probably one or the other. My guess is post tensioning cables because it's at the top side near the damage. Pt cables are cast kind of draped top to bottom over columns and at the ends (where this damage would be), running horizontal.

I guess you could call that rebar (my boss would cringe if he heard me say rebar) but I was looking at it differently.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It's obviously rebar and it's obviously from the columns and not the foundation.





I have to disagree. Those look like tensioning cables of the slab to me. Column rebar is different.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If you accept the FDR as valid then you prove the official story incorrect.

The data is irreconcilable with the physical damage and the security video primarily due to the reported descent angle.


ALL the evidence still converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. By your own clear admission here, Craig, you won't address all the evidence.

Best you get to work, and refute ALL of the evidence, don't you think?

rofl. are you daft? i am asking seriously for the record. its like the john titor story, only one part has to be wrong for the story to be wrong. the video and photographic evidence directly contradict the FDR evidence.

That in itself proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story is at the very least wrong.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


I have to disagree. Those look like tensioning cables of the slab to me. Column rebar is different.


Columns at the Pentagon are "different" than your typical columns.


original image



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
In fact those columns are also right at the front and would have been right next to the ones that were removed leaving the rebar sticking out of the foundation like that.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

rofl. are you daft? i am asking seriously for the record. its like the john titor story, only one part has to be wrong for the story to be wrong. the video and photographic evidence directly contradict the FDR evidence.

That in itself proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story is at the very least wrong.


Exactly.

As I said in the beginning of this thread when seanm got the tip from jref to come here and harass me.....

He is using the classic logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

It is not my job to prove a 757 impact. That is the job of the government and they have failed miserably.

I simply expose this as well as the fatal contradictions in the evidence that they have presented proving THEIR claim false.

There is not a single piece of evidence that I have or would "ignore".

seanm has simply failed to post any for me to address.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If you accept the FDR as valid then you prove the official story incorrect.

The data is irreconcilable with the physical damage and the security video primarily due to the reported descent angle.


ALL the evidence still converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. By your own clear admission here, Craig, you won't address all the evidence.

Best you get to work, and refute ALL of the evidence, don't you think?

rofl. are you daft?


No. I use my brain.


i am asking seriously for the record. its like the john titor story, only one part has to be wrong for the story to be wrong. the video and photographic evidence directly contradict the FDR evidence.


So you're now jprophet420, Craig?

Apart from the fact that there is no story, but only the evidence, you are making a fallacious argument.

Neither post-event photos nor FDR data were used or needed to be used to establish that AA77 hit the Pentagon.


That in itself proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story is at the very least wrong.


I am sure you now must recognize how silly your statement is.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jprophet420

rofl. are you daft? i am asking seriously for the record. its like the john titor story, only one part has to be wrong for the story to be wrong. the video and photographic evidence directly contradict the FDR evidence.

That in itself proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story is at the very least wrong.


Exactly.

As I said in the beginning of this thread when seanm got the tip from jref to come here and harass me.....

He is using the classic logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

It is not my job to prove a 757 impact. That is the job of the government and they have failed miserably.

I simply expose this as well as the fatal contradictions in the evidence that they have presented proving THEIR claim false.

There is not a single piece of evidence that I have or would "ignore".

seanm has simply failed to post any for me to address.


You're getting awfully desperate, Craig, since you know that you can't get away with your "no 757 hit the Pentagon" nonsense.

You can't even answer simple questions about the evidence!



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm
You can't even answer simple questions about the evidence!


...and you can´t seem to accept that these pictures clearly show that nothing, NOTHING, entered and crushed below that part of the foundation, let alone a jet engine.

You can´t seem to accept that if the engine did not strike below the foundation on the pictures, it puts the alleged impact of plane in a different location, i.e. substantially higher.

If the plane impacted higher, the damage to the building would be substantially different as shown many times.

The damage and lack thereof IS the evidence.

You can spin all the "magic bullet theories" you like, this is not going away.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Here is another closeup and a comparison image leaving zero doubt that this is column rebar.




original image

Notice how intact the front of the foundation is in this image as well.

The 90 ton 757 would have slammed right into this.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm

You can't even answer simple questions about the evidence!




You haven't asked any.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire

Originally posted by seanm
You can't even answer simple questions about the evidence!


...and you can´t seem to accept that these pictures clearly show that nothing, NOTHING, entered and crushed below that part of the foundation, let alone a jet engine.


But I am not foolish like you, Craig. I can guarantee that you have no knowledge of the impact, destruction, and subsequent trajectory, of the port engine. Your photo cannot be used on any basis for any claim that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. You're just pushing strings with your fallacious reasoning, Craig.


You can´t seem to accept that if the engine did not strike below the foundation on the pictures, it puts the alleged impact of plane in a different location, i.e. substantially higher.


You can't seem to accept what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You know nothing about the port engine and cannot begin to make any claims about it.


The damage and lack thereof IS the evidence.


Since you can't bring evidence of the impact, destruction, and subsequent trajectory, of the port engine, you're going nowhere with your latest foolish claims.


You can spin all the "magic bullet theories" you like, this is not going away.


Something that never existed to begin with can't go anywhere. You have NO evidence to support your claims, Craig.

You know it and we know it.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by seanm

You can't even answer simple questions about the evidence!



You haven't asked any.


You don't really want to insult the readers here who know better, do you, Craig?



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Seanm, are you implicating that Truth4hire is Craig, or have you lost track of who in fact you are communicating with?

Why do you use hollow rethorics, instead of well researched subjects with multiple references, to prove your points.

You clearly try to provoke some of our long term members into a flame war.

Try me.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I'm coming into this late, but I do think Craig has a point on the lack of foundational damage one would expect to see. I would expect the explosion to proceed as explosions usually do--in all directions--, then I would expect to see much more foundational damage, and with the angle of the plane I really do think we should see something more.

I for one do think a JET CRASHED into the pentagon, but I am open to where the evidence leads.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
.... but I am open to where the evidence leads.


Good.

Stay open buddy because CIT has a lot more where this came from!



(hint: new 38 minute short to be released within the week.)

[edit on 6-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


It appears you're probably right. Just the way the cables where coming out horizontal from the slab is what made me think they were tensioning cables.

Like I said, I haven't researched the pentagon.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join