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: 21
22
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
Your incredible patronizing attitude makes it hard for me to post in this topic, as I fully expect you to respond with some sort of smart ass reply with many smiley face emoticons and perhaps a comment telling me to "think," but here goes anyways.

First off, your pictures.

Do you know where, in any of your pictures the plane would have been in relation? The engine is the only thing that could have MAYBE done any damage to the ground. Anything else would have just crumpled. In addition, the foundation is the very, very bottom, and is generally below the ground. I don't know the exact foundation of the Pentagon, as there are like 10 different ways to build a foundation. If you can provide me some information(after all the burden is on you to prove your theory) on how the pentagon's foundation was built, I can further argue. I'll look through the internets as well trying to find some info.

Also, do you know the date of when those pictures were taken?

What are you suggesting caused this damage if it was not a plane?



Clearly you haven't even bothered to read this thread before writing your knee jerk reply.

I RARELY use emoticons and only replied on this page saying "think" to the guy who said it 30 times to everyone else.

Please read the thread before asking questions because they were ALL answered.

Yes we know the exact date of all government sourced images presented.

They were all taken on 9/21/2001 by Jocelyn Augustino during the clean-up process.

I have sourced official reports specifically stating exactly where they claim plane would have entered including the left engine burrowing into the concrete:

From ASCE Building Performance Report


It doesn't matter what TYPE of foundation it was.

Unless you can prove to me that there is a type of foundation that is impervious to a 90 ton jet aircraft traveling over 500mph you have no relevant point.

To suggest that the entire 90 ton jet would simply "crumple" except for the 6 ton engine is ridiculous anyway.

Feel free to come back with any questions that haven't been answered or relevant points that haven't been made AFTER you go back and actually read the thread.




posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


You claim that the private contractors that were hired to work on the renovations were in on it. Where is your proof?

Sorry, but judging by the responses you are recieving here.... The towel should be thrown by you!


Pssh.

Dealing with you official story apologists is like swatting flies.

You always come back.

Show me a thread you have made that has 12 stars, 21 pages long, 400 replies, and almost 8,000 views.

You can not debunk it.

This is further proof of a military deception on 9/11 and it kills you so you resort to attacking me personally.

Keep it up!


It only solidifies the message.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I will wait for a list of witnesses to come forward to support seeing a commercial jet fly OVER the Pentagon.

I will wait for the evidence that the CIT get presented to the Media or the appropriate officials.

I will wait for the grand jury investigations.

I will wait for the proof that shows the PRIVATE contractors that were hired to renovate the Pentagon were "in on it".

I'm also curious if this picture was seen in this forum:
Not sure how long it took all the "perps" to plant all this stuff??
source:
11-settembre.blogspot.com...




And,would a detonation cause this type of destruction??






posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The perps had years to plant as much debris as they wanted in locked unoccupied offices during the "renovation".

Why do you keep going off on irrelevant details?

The foundation was undamaged.

The plane was on the north side of the citgo.

Unless you can prove otherwise you have no relevant point.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Show me a thread you have made that has 12 stars, 21 pages long, 400 replies, and almost 8,000 views.


Being a skeptic in here, i do not get the following that CT'ers get in here....but just becasue you asked:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

57 Stars for my OP
66 Flags
over 5,000 views.


Not bad for a skeptic in a conspiracy theory chat room.

Keep swatting the flys ....



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Congratulations.

Perhaps you should go back to that thread since the fact that you have to continually go off topic with irrelevant attacks proves you are losing the debate here.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


How big is that door on the office that stored the landing gear?? How was that landing gear carried out??


And..oh... wouldnt dragging thousands of pounds of airplane wreakage at least scrape the foundation???

Keep swatting



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Thousands of pounds?

You are making stuff up.

None of that debris is too large to fit through a door, the door could have been any size, they had all of the time, resources, equipment, and money to move ANYTHING they wanted.

They are the Pentagon and it was a renovation.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Off topic? I am trying to gather the evidence you claim to have. You have 4 people that claim to have seen the Citgo side...blah blah blah... and then they say that they saw the plane hit the pentagon. You can't keep on cherry picking evidence...

Get the grand jury investigation rolling and I will let you swat me dead.

I will promise you....it will never happen.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


A renovation that has been ongoing by PRIVATE CONTRACTORS!!

Once again please provide the evidence that shows that they planted the plane parts.....

I do not know how much that pile of plane landing gear and motor parts weighs.... perhaps someone can be of assistance.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


None of what you said even addresses the evidence let alone refutes it.

You are merely spewing hollow rhetoric out of desperation and this is completely evident.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


What?

Tell me how someone who bids on a job (government job) can be talked into planting evidence or ignoring plane parts...etc etc...And then keeps quiet about it.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Doesn't matter what it weighs.

Clearly it can be moved and clearly the Pentagon had the means to do so.

The plane was on the north side of the citgo and could not have caused the physical damage.

The fact that thy physical damage is anomalous to the official reports supports the notion of a military deception whether or not there has been a successful cover-up/propagand effort since then in conjunction with a fraudulent permanent global war that has already lead to the deaths of 10's of thousands of innocent civilians.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



Tell me how your question is relevant to the lack of foundation damage evidence and evidence that the plane was on the north side of the citgo first.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I don't know the plane was on the North Side. All i heard was 4 people state that. I also heard them state (not all of them) that the plane HIT the pentagon.


You claimed on TV that the plane was not shot down Prior to the impact because you interviewed "everyone" and not one of them supported this claim.

How many witnesses do you have to the flyover..... ZERO! Nada! Zilch!



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


100% of confirmed accounts place the plane on the north side of the citgo.

0% of confirmed AND previously published accounts directly refute this.

The fact that you are unwilling to accept the evidence and the implications thereof does not make it go away.

That is called denial.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



100% ??? 4 ?

What is the percentage of that 100% that were able to, state that a plane hit the Pentagon?



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Circular logic.

For a self proclaimed "skeptic" you sure are a fan of logical fallacies.

The plane could nor be what caused the physical damage to the building.

The fact that it was on the north side proves a military deception.

The fact that most were deceived does not disprove their independent placement of the plane.



[edit on 20-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
1 first-hand eyewitness account is evidence.

2 independently corroborated accounts become strong-evidence.

3 independently corroborated accounts become strong-evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have provided 4 and have 2 more that we have not yet presented.

Given the fact that NOBODY directly refutes them in ANY of the previously published testimony and it is clear that we have proof of a military deception.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



The witnesses claim to have seen the North Side...

The same witnesses claim to have seen the plane strike the Pentagon.

Keep on going Craig.... you have nothing.

Please tell me what research you have done into the contractors that did the renovation work on wedge 1.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join