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: 26
22
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist


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.


Wrong. The media is 100% complicit and/or manipulated in this operation.

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





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?


All evidence in general that contradicts the official story.

Did you know that the 9/11 commission and the media ignore the anomalous unprecedented mysterious 7 second collapse of building 7?

Perhaps you should look into it.






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


You have ZERO basis to state these LIES about me and I demand proof or a retraction.

1. We sell no advertising space on our forum here at ATS, our website, or anywhere.
2. We report the evidence PERIOD. We had no idea what the witnesses would report. You have ZERO basis to accuse us of skewing the evidence based on our beliefs and if you don't prove your libelous claim or retract it this will be addressed first with the owners of this site.


We are simply concerned independent citizen investigative reporters who are picking up where the media has failed on our own dime. We do not have the resources or authority to conduct a criminal investigation and it is NOT our responsibility OR legal ability.

We are bringing evidence to the table that proves a criminal investigation is necessary and that the war on terror is fraudulent.

The fact that you are suggesting we should be the ones to actually indict responsible individuals is absurd.




posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by drannno


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...


Yes a LOGICAL discussion. Did any of these witnesses see a plane fly over the Pentagon? NO! ...oh thats right... it was all a diversion of some sort. Please... you want logical? Stick to the facts. Craig says "all the witnesses" ... All of HIS witnesses. Cherry picking is not factual. Thats what is being done here.


Originally posted by drannno
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. .............. 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.....


Yes i watched Who Killed John O'Neil a little over a year ago. Can it be debunked? Nope. Can it be proven accurate? Nope. The movie is based on pure speculation and "what if's".

Please provide me PROOF that these private contractors were in on it! You can not and will not. I actaully spit out my coffee at this one:


What I'm saying is that the contractors were most likely drug dealers dressed up in uniforms.


Really? drug dealers that do incredible masonry work, electrical work, engineering designs, drug dealing ...AND controlled demolition work!! WOW talk about your jack of all trades!!



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
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





What are you confused about?

The evidence proves the hypothesis unless you are willing to assert that some form of exotic weaponry was used to "disappear" or disintegrate the plane after it flew north of the citgo.

Is that what you believe?



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 




Wrong. The media is 100% complicit and/or manipulated in this operation.

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


100%. I find this very hard to believe. Theres a local paper in most small towns across the US. Im sure that your proof would astound more people that way, than banging on a door at CNN yelling "No Plane." Personally, I would have had you escorted out by security.




All evidence in general that contradicts the official story.

Did you know that the 9/11 commission and the media ignore the anomalous unprecedented mysterious 7 second collapse of building 7?

Perhaps you should look into it.


No Craig. Perhaps you should look into it. I've never claimed to be a "concerned independent citizen investigative reporters who is picking up where the media has failed." You have. Now live up to it. More happened on 9/11 than what occured at the pentagon.



You have ZERO basis to state these LIES about me and I demand proof or a retraction.

1. We sell no advertising space on our forum here at ATS, our website, or anywhere.
2. We report the evidence PERIOD. We had no idea what the witnesses would report. You have ZERO basis to accuse us of skewing the evidence based on our beliefs and if you don't prove your libelous claim or retract it this will be addressed first with the owners of this site.


YOU have ZERO BASIS to DEMAND ANYTHING from me. I have my opinion and I am entitled to it. Your shriek of "libel" is laughable at best. Take it up with whoever you deem necessary Craig. Im willing to wear a ban or a warn for posting my opinion.

CT



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Well...the pentagon obviosly wasnt hit by any plane bigger than a Cesna person aircraft...im sorry but jet liners leave VERY big messes when they crash...not just a hole and a perfect green for some golf...



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
To Craig Ranke CIT. for providing this irrefutable, plain, logical, presentation of the undeniable physical evidence that there was no plane. One word, BRAVO!



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
the whole pentagon thing has nothing to do with the physical evidence.

it's actually very simple. There were many witnesses who saw a jetliner fly into the pentagon, not a missile.

The other issue, of course, is the crew and passengers of the flight.

do any of the conspiracy belivers have credible and independently verified physical evidence of something happening to them other than being hijacked and flown into a building ?

nope

that's because it was a jet that flew into the building

link to debunk article





care to call this guy a liar to his face ? I'd like to see that



FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"[\ex]





[edit on 26-10-2007 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Nothing he says contradicts the lack of foundation damage OR the north side claim which prove the plane did not hit the building.

A few pieces of scrap that you can hold in your had does not prove a 90 ton jet caused this damage:



Plus there is no way a human can hold the "tail section" of a 757 in their hand.

Perhaps he did hold a tiny scrap.

That does not prove a 757 hit or counter any of the evidence proving it didn't hit.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
April Gallop climbed out of that hole in the concrete you see where the airplane supposedly crashed through with her 6 month old son. Her desk was 40 feet inside. She saw no plane; smelled no gas; saw no plane wreckage. Her watch stopped at 9:31 when the bomb went off. The exact time, the exact same time as the clock at the heliport stopped.

Thats interesting. According to ATC, the airplane they were tracking as American Airlines Flight #77, a Boeing 757, didn't crash until 9:43. And thats the time they put in the official report. It has since been 'adjusted' to 9:37. 9:37 is the time on the Flight Data Recorder that the crash allegedly occurred on the allegedly recovered Flight Data Recorder from Flight 77.

The heliport clock and Aprils watch still show 9:31.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


a tiny scrap of what ? a missile or a jet ?

I'm still waiting for a detailed account of what happened to the crew and passengers



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


a tiny scrap of what ? a missile or a jet ?

I'm still waiting for a detailed account of what happened to the crew and passengers


The scraps have not been positively identified to belong to anything at all.

But some do have AA paint/colors on it.

Unfortunately that is not what the plane looked like.

Just ask listen to all these people who saw it:

"Flight 77" The White Plane



And it is not our responsibility to tell you what happened to the original plane.

You should be demanding an answer to that question from the authorities.

Unfortunately they can't even keep that story straight!
Watch this.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 





And it is not our responsibility to tell you what happened to the original plane.


And there goes your credibility. If people are to believe your claims about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, you need a complete theory that answers all the questions. Not a half baked one that disregards evidence and eyewitnesses.

You dont seriously expect people to accept your theory without asking valid questions.

You claim:

The plane flew north of the citgo and overflew the pentagon allowing something else to cause the damage.

I (and others) respond:

If the plane overflew the pentagon, what happened to the passengers and crew? And what caused the damage?

These are valid questions based on your theory. Questions you always seem to brush off with your "not our responsibility" line.

CT



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist
 


Incorrect.

It would be impossible for ANYONE to know all the details about how a complex crime of this nature was carried out and we don't have to explain it.

If one part is proven a fabrication the entire story falls apart.

For instance; the controlled demolition of building 7 alone is enough to prove 9/11 was an inside job.

The fact that the plane was on the north side ALONE proves that 9/11 was an inside job.

Done deal; let's clean up capitol hill and completely over haul the republic.

We have no choice.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 





And it is not our responsibility to tell you what happened to the original plane.


And there goes your credibility. If people are to believe your claims about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, you need a complete theory that answers all the questions. Not a half baked one that disregards evidence and eyewitnesses.

You dont seriously expect people to accept your theory without asking valid questions.

You claim:

The plane flew north of the citgo and overflew the pentagon allowing something else to cause the damage.

I (and others) respond:

If the plane overflew the pentagon, what happened to the passengers and crew? And what caused the damage?

These are valid questions based on your theory. Questions you always seem to brush off with your "not our responsibility" line.

CT


Six independant, corroborated eyewitness accounts are not speculation. This is stroung evidence! These witnesses need to be addressed by the supporters of the official account.

Your asking Craig to speculate with a theory on what this evidence means. I believe he has already offered a theory. Then accuse him of speculation???

Six verified independant eyewitness accounts...this must be formally addressed in a new investigation!!



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Craig, I watched your film today for the 1st time, and found it to be informative..though not necessarily conclusive. I do agree that asking anyone with a normal IQ to believe the "Official Version" of 911 is ludicrous. I applaude your attempts to gather facts regarding the pentagon strike, and I myself do not believe that the AA Flt 77 hit the building...my reasons: lack of physical proof like airplane parts, seats, bodies, luggage, the lawn, the film from the security cameras, etc. Also, the memories of the persons that you interviewed were obviously suspect, ie, having to remind the Pentagon Police officer that he used the rear gas pump and backed out. But, I do believe that a case is made that the aircraft flew on the north side of the Navy Exchange station from their testimony. Regardless, I am amazed that some U.S. Society isn't hunting down the Demolition team that took down the 3 WTC buildings...what a work of art...perfect demos, and they deserve accolades. Also, I am on your side in this, and my advice to you is: don't be so defensive when your argument is questioned or attacked. Continue to present your facts, you will not convince all. Let your presentation of facts do your talking. Keep up the good work and best of Luck.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by DeathOfAmerica
 


Hey thanks man.

Basically if you accept the north side claim that is all that matters because it IS conclusive.

Not a single expert, pilot, scientist, or engineer on earth would state that a plane on the north side could have hit the poles and caused the reported physical damage to the building.

I suppose I am a bit passionate in defense of the data we present but that same passion and drive for truth and justice is why were able to get the information in the first place.

Peace!



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Craig and Caustic,

Your arguing is becoming tedious and neither one of you are getting through to one another on this minuscule issue.

The fact is, Craig is completely correct- the damage would have impacted the foundation at least to the C-ring given the official story and Official flight path and payload of a 757. This is one of the major holes in the Official story. Everybody knows it all too well.

I highly recommend you guys move on to another subject. You both are extremely intelligent and eloquent in your arguments which proves you will be more useful and valuable elsewhere on ATS.

I am NOT and I repeat I am not trying to be holier than thou and tell you guys what to do- so please don't get angry with me. I just want to listen to you guys argue over something a bit more current.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by dk3000
 


Well I disagree that the foundation issue is at all clear - I'm still not certain there would be much damage in any one spot (since the plane was moving roughly parallel to the slab), and that the minimal damage there may be isn't covered in mud in these photos. However I don't intend to argue the point, since it is for me a minor one I've already spent too much time on. As you say, the argument is getting tedious, but then again my last post till this one was over a month ago. But since Craig wanted to show this proven point put a rest to 757 impact debate, he's still debating to prove that to doubters. It's true not everyone will be convinced, and we both need to learn this, to learn to disagree. I've been going for the throat as it were lately, but have also been thinking of leaving it lie with all we've all said just there and on the record. I'll probably settle for a compromise solution, at least until I've made a few more points.

Thanks for the thoughts, DK, and that's one crazy horse there.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

And there goes your credibility. If people are to believe your claims about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, you need a complete theory that answers all the questions. Not a half baked one that disregards evidence and eyewitnesses.

You dont seriously expect people to accept your theory without asking valid questions.


and what exactly is it that makes any official account exempt from the same scrutiny?

becasue all official accounts do exactly what you said.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Wow.... what do the the "debunkers" and federal trolls have to say about this?? No damage to the foundation.... When the left engine should have dug into it... A 5 year old could have came to the conclusion that no plane hit the pentagon just by looking at the initial MSM pics... the pentagon debate is over no plane hit it period!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join