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: 25
22
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


You came back!

Taking a break from you Letting It Happen articles to chime in with another irrelevant conspiracy theory?


Yep! And to welcome your temporary supporter.


So what do you have to say about robertz's assertion that it was newly poured concrete?


I was itching to weigh back in, and since you've invited me to...

I'm neither convinced nor left thinking the notion is laughable as you put it. IF the foundation were seriously damaged, they might want to smooth it out with a temp top layer to facilitate machinery (if that even makes sense), and I'd not really thought of the significance of no other column remnants at all. Interesting that they should cut/grind thse down to nothing but leave the edge ones, or that they'd pour new concrete with these left hanging out. Either way, the idea seems to be to smooth out areas where they'd be driving around...

I chose not to argue new concrete because I found it unlikely, but I don't know enough about cnstruction to really say there was no pouring.

I agree with you that whether it's foundation or floor slab above lower levels seems irrelevant, unless we're looking for major damage, which would probably be worse in the latter case.

And briefly again on the expected damage from a 90-ton airliner 'smashing into' this horizontal concrete whatever-it-is: in actuality the weight works against you, in conjunction with its level flight path and great speed; it means the plane would coninue essentially parallel to the slab unti it'd smashed through a lot of stuff and gravity started taking over. The ONLY spot up front 'alleged' to have had the plane smash into it is at left engine point, and that only alleged by the wrong ASCE graphic.

In the initial explosion, only small parts of the plane would be moving independently enough to scrape the floor, along with building debris. I'd really expect little damage, no matter how strenuously you argue otherwise, and either a thin layer of concrete or even the mud I've cited (still no rebuttal as you promised) would be able to fill these minor gouges.

So as you credit me with having thrown in the towel, do so knowing I threw in only after having made these cases to my satisfaction on previous pages. Anyway, enjoy your debates with people who refuse to believe, as you say, that there's nothing left to debate. The only question is whether the continues debate is worth getting dragged into, and for me the answer is no.

Peace anyway.




posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I'm neither convinced nor left thinking the notion is laughable as you put it.


Oh my imagine that.

A convoluted, wordy, wishy-washy response that takes no firm position and merely serves to cast doubt and neutralize the information.

What are the odds?



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


like EVERYONE on this forum, I was clearly speculating about the possibility of it being freshly poured.


Wrong.

robertz was quite certain of it and even went so far as to call me out as if the entire basis of this thread had been completely debunked.

That is why I didn't expect him to come back, he looked silly. But he interrupted his busy Saturday night to come back and reinforce how certain he is EVEN STILL.

Perhaps you were trying to remain non-committal while voraciously defending the notion but robertz was and remains quite certain of this lunacy.

I wonder if he is still so confident now that even his only supporter has abandoned his theory!



The last photo Craig posted makes me lean toward it not being a fresh pour. This however does NOT provide any credence to the ridiculous claims that Craig has posted in here that he has no doubt that the contractors were in on it.


So why didn't it convince you when I posted it on page 22?

Do you just trudge on with your baseless attacks without bothering to even read the posts or view the images presented?

It's simply another view of the same image anyway.



I also find it hard to believe that with a multi ton collapse, there was zero damage done to the floor.


So what's your point?

Are you trying to say that the building didn't really collapse or that the Pentagon had special super duper concrete which must be why the jet didn't damage it?



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I also find it hard to believe that with a multi ton collapse, there was zero damage done to the floor.


Maybe because it was just a partial collapse of just 1 section.

Did you e-mail the contractors yet, or should I?



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


like EVERYONE on this forum, I was clearly speculating about the possibility of it being freshly poured.


Wrong.

robertz was quite certain of it and even went so far as to call me out as if the entire basis of this thread had been completely debunked.

but robertz was and remains quite certain of this lunacy.

I wonder if he is still so confident now that even his only supporter has abandoned his theory!




How am I wrong?? I don't care if Robertz was quite certain... I still say it is a possiblilty... although unlikely.


Ultima ~

If you feel compelled you e-mail them...please do. It is Monday... and being a Red Sox fan I was up VERY late last night and out the door at 5 am.... And my boss called out sick again.... yadda yadda....



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
You said "EVERYONE" on this forum was merely "speculating" about this.

You are wrong.

robertz was asserting it rather strongly and even said he had completely debunked the thread based solely on this claim.

You jumped on the bandwagon and even ignored the image I posted and forced me to repost it again after pages of arguing about it before you finally admitted there was little merit.

The way you still hold on to a shred of possibility that it's true is quite comical.

Either the concrete in question was poured within a day or two or it wasn't

Clearly it wasn't but facts aren't important to you.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You said "EVERYONE" on this forum was merely "speculating" about this.

You are wrong.

robertz was asserting it rather strongly and even said he had completely debunked the thread based solely on this claim.

You jumped on the bandwagon and even ignored the image I posted and forced me to repost it again after pages of arguing about it before you finally admitted there was little merit.

The way you still hold on to a shred of possibility that it's true is quite comical.

Either the concrete in question was poured within a day or two or it wasn't

Clearly it wasn't but facts aren't important to you.


Here is my quote:

like EVERYONE on this forum, I was clearly speculating about the possibility of it being freshly poured.


Perhaps I should have rephrased it ...I was stating that everyone in this FORM at one time or another "speculates." Which is what I was doing. AND what you do every day in here.

Here is the way I SHOULD have posted it:

like EVERYONE on this forum, I was clearly speculating. Which is what I was doing in regards to the concrete.

I did not ignore the most recent photo you presented. I suggest you go RE- read my posts.

While your at it, I gave you an abundance of information for you so you can further your investigation into the contractors that you claim murdered many innocent people.

Let me know how that and your grand jury investigation is going.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Perhaps you should call them and post the recording of your conversation with them denying involvement since I personally don't see how this would accomplish anything whatsoever.

But if you think for a moment that will even begin to counter the evidence against the official story you are of course delusional.

The notion that anyone would simply admit to their involvement in a crime of mass murder is simply idiotic.

But let's get one thing straight....

I have never accused any particular contractor or contracting company as being involved in this plot.

ALL mainstream media previously published unconfirmed witness statements are considered "suspect" in this investigation. This does not mean they are all guilty but in light of the evidence against the official story certainly those that support it are suspect.

But I don't ignorantly expect any of them to admit involvement when asked or think that it's proof of innocence if they deny it when asked.

If fact because of this I have never asked that question to anyone since it would serve no purpose.

So you can keep badgering me with this pointless and completely irrelevant premise but it only serves to expose your illogical and irrational approach to discussing this information.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Oh and I am not aware of the Grand Jury that you are talking about.

Let me know if you find any information on it.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig you stated in the past that you were bringing all your information to the media AND you suspected there would be a grand jury investigation.

YOU also stated that the contractors were involved in the conspiracy. You actually stated it I believe on page two of this thread.

I didn't tell you to call them and ask them if they killed the people...I asked you to do your "Leave no stone turned" style of investigating that you and Waldo do.

You made the claim... you back it up.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
If you feel compelled you e-mail them...please do. It is Monday... and being a Red Sox fan I was up VERY late last night and out the door at 5 am.... And my boss called out sick again.... yadda yadda....


As i have stated i have e-mailed companies that were at ground zeero, but it ws hard to get information from them due to the 9/11 lawsuits filed by the families.

Please give me the names of the contractors and CORs so i can e-mail them.



[edit on 22-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig you stated in the past that you were bringing all your information to the media AND you suspected there would be a grand jury investigation.


I still believe there will be a grand jury investigation and we are constantly approaching media. It is no secret that evidence against the 9/11 official story is margianlized, demonized, and ingnored by media and authorities.

I have never stated that there would DEFINITELY be a grand jury and the fact that there hasn't been one yet does not disprove the evidence we present.

So to continually bring it up as if this is relevant to our discussion about the foundation is nothing but more badgering and only serves to expose your illogical and irrational approach to discussing this information.



YOU also stated that the contractors were involved in the conspiracy. You actually stated it I believe on page two of this thread.

I didn't tell you to call them and ask them if they killed the people...I asked you to do your "Leave no stone turned" style of investigating that you and Waldo do.


His name is Aldo and as stated, calling people and asking them if they participated in a crime of mass murder is not a logical approach and would serve no purpose.

We have never claimed to know what individuals or contracting companies were involved.

We provide evidence proving the official story is a lie which proves somebody had to have been involved.

It is not our responsibility to determine exactly who the perpetrators are and we have no intentions of trying to do so.

That should be the entire focus of the "new investigation" that we call for.



You made the claim... you back it up.


We have made no claims that are not backed up by the evidence we present.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


I still believe there will be a grand jury investigation and we are constantly approaching media. It is no secret that evidence against the 9/11 official story is margianlized, demonized, and ingnored by media and authorities.

I have never stated that there would DEFINITELY be a grand jury and the fact that there hasn't been one yet does not disprove the evidence we present.



I will bet my house and a year's salary that it never happens. If your evidence was as solid as you thought, you would have had your grand jury investigation. Fact is... it's not.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

His name is Aldo and as stated, calling people and asking them if they participated in a crime of mass murder is not a logical approach and would serve no purpose.

We have never claimed to know what individuals or contracting companies were involved.


I asked you to INVESTIGATE them. I didn't tell you to thumb your noses at them and call them murderers. (which you are)



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We provide evidence proving the official story is a lie which proves somebody had to have been involved.

It is not our responsibility to determine exactly who the perpetrators are and we have no intentions of trying to do so.

That should be the entire focus of the "new investigation" that we call for.





We have made no claims that are not backed up by the evidence we present.



Not true. You have implicated some of the private contractors as being in on it. True, you didn't say WHICH ones. I posted the information on the contractors that built the walls, electricians, engineers..etc. Is it unfair to ask you to prove that one of not all of them were in on it? You have Zero evidence to back up this claim.

Your claim to the flyover theory is a claim that you have no evidence for. You have 4 witnesses that claimed to see the plane fly on the North Side of the Citgo.(and two calimed to have seen the impact) Thats it. You have ZERO witnesses that saw a flyover! None, nada, Ziltch.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


I will bet my house and a year's salary that it never happens. If your evidence was as solid as you thought, you would have had your grand jury investigation. Fact is... it's not.


Argument from incredulity.

Irrelevant to the evidence.

Many guilty people walk free. That does not prove innocence.




I asked you to INVESTIGATE them. I didn't tell you to thumb your noses at them and call them murderers. (which you are)


You TOLD me to call them and ask them if they saw or planted bombs.

That is not a logical or rational way to approach an investigation.

You are simply badgering me with a completely idiotic demand.





Not true. You have implicated some of the private contractors as being in on it. True, you didn't say WHICH ones. I posted the information on the contractors that built the walls, electricians, engineers..etc. Is it unfair to ask you to prove that one of not all of them were in on it? You have Zero evidence to back up this claim.


Incorrect. I have implicated nobody. The evidence implicates many people. Exactly who it implicates I have never claimed to know.



Your claim to the flyover theory is a claim that you have no evidence for. You have 4 witnesses that claimed to see the plane fly on the North Side of the Citgo.(and two calimed to have seen the impact) Thats it. You have ZERO witnesses that saw a flyover! None, nada, Ziltch.


North of the citgo IS evidence for a military deception including a flyover whether or not you continue to live in denial about it.

I suppose you could come up with your own theory with what happened to the plane after it flew north of the citgo but we believe the most logical and rational hypothesis based on this evidence is that the plane flew over the building.

So....in context of the north side evidence....since you refuse to accept the flyover hypothesis.....what are you suggesting happened to the plane after it flew north of the citgo?

Dismissing the evidence all together is not a valid answer.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Do you or do you not claim that the some of the contractors were in on it?

Craig, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.... but one last time... all the witnesses you have that had the ability, saw the plane hit the pentagon. Thats it! You can call it what ever you want, but you can't pick and choose the accuracy of your witnesses.

Well... he saw theplane on the North side... BUT ... he was mistaken when he saw it slam into the side of the Pentagon.


Sorry...don't work that way. This is why your theory has not caught on like all the other one. Heck even the Hologram theories have a greater following.

The security camera video shows SOMETHING heading into... and the Doubletree Video shows nothing at all flying over the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Both claims can NOT be simultaneously correct.

One has to be false.

The fact is that ALL of the Citgo witnesses admitted that what they really saw was a "fireball" and did NOT physically see the plane enter the building because of the fireball.

Turcios: "No I did not see it hit, all I saw was a fireball."
Brooks: "What I'd seen then was a great big fireball rise into the sky"
Lagasse: "Did I see what happened after that? No because there was a big fireball".

So you are wrong.

The fact that they BELIEVE the plane hit does not over rule their independent placement of the plane which they ALL swear by and are 100% sure of because it flew right by them.

The alleged impact point was very far away compared to the plane as it passed by the station.

There are a ton of reasons why we should accept their placement of the plane over their deduction of an impact.

Since the plane was on the north side it's clear that we can accept no data controlled and provided by the suspect as valid.

I don't care what you hypothesize happened to the plane after that but the north side claim has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, keeps getting validated, and is directly refuted by nobody.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   


Well... he saw theplane on the North side... BUT ... he was mistaken when he saw it slam into the side of the Pentagon.


Sorry...don't work that way.

Wait a minute, why not? Isn't this supposed to be a logical discussion of the events? Did you not consider that the plane was a lot closer to the witness when it was on the north side of the citgo station, yet much FURTHER from the witness when it hit the Pentagon.



Also, if you want your contractor questions answered, go see my thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


If you're so ignorant as to think that people won't commit crimes for money, well, you should really see that movie I posted in the above thread. Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization, they are a drug cartel. There is proof of this...and the fact that the media does not report about it is extremely disturbing to me. What I'm saying is that the contractors were most likely drug dealers dressed up in uniforms. That's why they haven't said anything.. You guys think we are accusing law abiding citizens of the frame and cover-up.......HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH.....




posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Maybe what you guys should do is look into Masonry Arts' background connection, see if they have any shady roots, government contracts. Maybe you'll find, for example, they had a contract to renovate the Pentagon. This suspicious linkage, plus your findings they may have helped install explosive columns during their renovation, shoud more or less prove thay helped install explosive columns.

Obviously they'd also be involved in the cover-up, so questioning them about it would be futile - or maybe interesting actually. What if you could get someone slipping about this on video?



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 




I still believe there will be a grand jury investigation and we are constantly approaching media


Please. If your so called evidence was so irrefutable, the media you are "constantly approaching" would be banging on your door in the blink of an eye. Until that happens, there will be nothing even remotely close to a grand jury on the matter.



It is no secret that evidence against the 9/11 official story is margianlized, demonized, and ingnored by media and authorities.


Did you mean your evidence or evidence in general?



We provide evidence proving the official story is a lie which proves somebody had to have been involved.




That should be the entire focus of the "new investigation" that we call for.


So the whole point of your "no stone unturned investigation" was to get them to start an investigation. Such a cop out. If you were as commited to the truth as you were in selling advertising space on your forum, you would follow this investigation to wherever it leads you. Your investigation has gone backwards from the very beginning, you started with your conclusion, then found facts (and alleged witnesses) to fit your theory. You have dismissed other witnesses and other evidence.

CIT theory(in a nutshell):

No plane hit the Pentagon, but dont ask us what did or why or how or what happened to the passengers or anything like that. Leave that for the next group of dedicated "investigators."

CT



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Im confused Craig.



North of the citgo IS evidence for a military deception including a flyover whether or not you continue to live in denial about it.

I suppose you could come up with your own theory with what happened to the plane after it flew north of the citgo but we believe the most logical and rational hypothesis based on this evidence is that the plane flew over the building.



In another thread you wrote this. These posts are 8 mins apart by the way.


North of the citgo testimony proves flyover and you have provided NOTHING to refute it.

Source

All emphasis mine

So is it hypothesis as to what happened after the plane allegedly flew north of the citgo, or does the alleged flight prove what happened?

CT



[edit on 24/10/2007 by Conspiracy Theorist]




top topics



 
22
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join