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: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Because bottom line, these two images alone perfectly show how it's impossible for the 757 impact to be true.



Photographs are ambiguous and do not make up the totality of the evidence. Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event at the Pentagon.


Measurements, physical damage, and official reports are NOT ambiguous.

This is physical evidence and therefore it is not ambiguous.

When we present corroborated confirmed eyewitness testimony it's called "ambiguous" and when we present physical evidence you still call it "ambiguous".

Although your question is off topic everyone knows there was very little "wreckage" found and reported.

This is about the totality of the significant sized pieces:
outside:


These pieces all could have been carried by humans and could have been easily placed there minutes before or after the violent event. Notice how they are all curiously uncharred.

Inside:


Not much that's for sure. All could have been quite easily locked in vacant offices of this section of the Pentagon that was under "renovation" for years prior to the event. In fact there is no hard proof these images were taken in the Pentagon at all.

Besides that you merely have tiny undistiguishable scraps that were likely blown from these obliterated construction trailers when all the explosives were detonated.



Now please stick to the topic.




[edit on 29-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Because bottom line, these two images alone perfectly show how it's impossible for the 757 impact to be true.



Photographs are ambiguous and do not make up the totality of the evidence. Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event at the Pentagon.



Measurements, physical damage, and official reports are NOT ambiguous. This is physical evidence and therefore it is not ambiguous.


Actually, you demonstrate in this very post that you believe the photos of the wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon are "ambiguous."


When we present corroborated confirmed eyewitness testimony it's called "ambiguous" and when we present physical evidence you still call it "ambiguous".


What we have here are dozens of eyewitnesses whose testimony is consistent with all of the other evidence we have that converges on the fact that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. These eyewitnesses were in many different locations, at different distances, had absolutely no connection to each other, and whose accounts were recorded by different news organizations withing a short period of time. In addition, there are no reports of a "missile" being seen.


Although your question is off topic everyone knows there was very little "wreckage" found and reported.


"Everyone" does not know any such thing. You must bring us the evidence I asked for: what was the wreckage recovered from the Pentagon?

My question is very much ON topic. Let me remind you that the subject is "Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon." (Emphasis mine.) I have pointed out that you must deal with all of the evidence. You cannot limit yourself in any way without refuting ALL of the evidence contrary to your claim that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon.


This is about the totality of the significant sized pieces:
outside:

These pieces all could have been carried by humans and could have been easily placed there minutes before or after the violent event. Notice how they are all curiously uncharred. In fact there is no hard proof these images were taken in the Pentagon at all.

Inside:

Not much that's for sure. All could have been quite easily locked in vacant offices of this section of the Pentagon that was under "renovation" for years prior to the event.

Besides that you merely have tiny undistiguishable scraps that were likely blown from these obliterated construction trailers when all the explosives were detonated.



Thus you have demonstrated that, contrary to your claim, your photographs are "ambiguous."


Now please stick to the topic.


I have. I would appreciate a direct answer to my question concerning your claim that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event at the Pentagon. What did they see? What did they recover?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I just finished watching The Pentacon and I must say


I no longer believe it was a Global Hawk because there was no need!

If those four witnesses are right, the official story is proven wrong!

Craig,
amazing work, but how to get this into mainstream? Sue the producers of the official 9/11 report? How to protect the witnesses?

Eeek. Dangerous op. O, and your theory about the non-damaged foundation makes sense. Actually, this I would consider more damning proof no plane hit the Pentagon.


[edit on 29-9-2007 by Truth4hire]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
I no longer believe it was a Global Hawk because there was no need!





Then what is it then as CTers have pointed out before? Global Hawk? Missile? Plane?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Then what is it then as CTers have pointed out before? Global Hawk? Missile? Plane?


It is dubious data that was controlled, vetted, and released by the perpetrators. Yet it still contradicts other data that they have controlled and released.

Security video showing object low and perfectly level with on frame of a strange squiggly smoke plume that doesn't cast a shadow.



Descent angle reported in government released FDR:




Obviously these two pieces of data are irreconcilable.

No investigator would accept data that was controlled by the suspect as valid.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
I just finished watching The Pentacon and I must say


I no longer believe it was a Global Hawk because there was no need!

If those four witnesses are right, the official story is proven wrong!

Craig,
amazing work, but how to get this into mainstream? Sue the producers of the official 9/11 report? How to protect the witnesses?

Eeek. Dangerous op. O, and your theory about the non-damaged foundation makes sense. Actually, this I would consider more damning proof no plane hit the Pentagon.




Glad you can see it.

It only takes very basic critical thinking skills.

Help us get it to mainstream.

Write letters, make calls, do what it takes.

All of the witnesses stand by the north side claim even now that know the implications.

This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a military deception.

Did you watch our interview with the cab driver?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Interesting..... it is possible that the aircraft hit but did not hit the foundation and therefore didn't damage it. How much latitude is there in the drawings to allow a shallower roll angle and the engine miss? Does this put it outside the damage zone?

I see some pretty good evidence for either side of this argument. Even if the arguments themselves are less than bullet-proof in their reasoning, the point is still the same.

From the altitude data I've looked at, there is a very strong suggestion of a fly-over, even in the best-case (read: pro official story) scenario. By super-fudging the FDR data I can make it hit, but then it still hits at the 3rd/4th floor level, which we know to be incorrect (the reference point being approximately the base of the fuselage due to the location of the radio altimeter aerials).

In favor of an aircraft:

* Damage to the building
* Alleged aircraft parts
* Witnesses that saw an aircraft (I don't mean saw it hit)


Against an aircraft:

* Lack of damage/debris outside the building
* Inconsistent reports of what happened
* Reports of multiple explosions
* Reports of smell of cordite
* The little bit of released footage shows nothing conclusive with 80+ tapes yet to be released - suggesting cover-up
* Reports it overflew
* Lack of debris
* Strange telephone calls (again)
* Damage to building inconsistent with official story
* Flight path in serious doubt

It is weighted quite heavily in favor of no aircraft, but there remains sufficient doubt to suggest that one did.

Look out for my next thread on Flight 77.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm

Actually, you demonstrate in this very post that you believe the photos of the wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon are "ambiguous."


You switched the topic from the lack of foundation damage compared to official reports to wreckage. My comment was in regards to the former and not the latter.





What we have here are dozens of eyewitnesses whose testimony is consistent with all of the other evidence we have that converges on the fact that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. These eyewitnesses were in many different locations, at different distances, had absolutely no connection to each other, and whose accounts were recorded by different news organizations withing a short period of time. In addition, there are no reports of a "missile" being seen.


I agree there was no missile.

And yes there were certainly plenty of witnesses to the plane.

But only a small handful would have a clear view of the alleged impact and NONE directly contradict the north side claim, report literally seeing the cab get speared with a light pole, or report seeing the smoke trail visible in the security video.



"Everyone" does not know any such thing. You must bring us the evidence I asked for: what was the wreckage recovered from the Pentagon?

My question is very much ON topic. Let me remind you that the subject is "Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon." (Emphasis mine.) I have pointed out that you must deal with all of the evidence. You cannot limit yourself in any way without refuting ALL of the evidence contrary to your claim that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon.


I have most certainly "dealt" with it. I provided images of all the "wreckage" and gave explanations for how it was planted. If you are claiming there was more wreckage that I haven't covered please provide evidence for it.





Thus you have demonstrated that, contrary to your claim, your photographs are "ambiguous."


Again....I never claimed that in regards to photographs of wreckage. I claimed that in regards to official reports of how the plane allegedly hit the building, the dimensions of a 757, the required wing tilt, and the impossible lack of foundation damage as a result.



I have. I would appreciate a direct answer to my question concerning your claim that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event at the Pentagon. What did they see? What did they recover?



There was very little "wreckage".

We already went over this.

It was easily planted and blown from the obliterated construction trailers.

Now I have answered your question twice.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by seanm

Actually, you demonstrate in this very post that you believe the photos of the wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon are "ambiguous."


You switched the topic from the lack of foundation damage compared to official reports to wreckage. My comment was in regards to the former and not the latter.


On the contrary, Craig. I pointed out in my first post that you must consider all of the evidence. The question is clear: did AA77 hit the Pentagon or not? You don't get to declare unilaterally: "I have photos that do not show what I think they should show, therefore a 757 did not hit the Pentagon."

I am confident you understand the point.


I agree there was no missile.

And yes there were certainly plenty of witnesses to the plane.

But only a small handful would have a clear view of the alleged impact and NONE directly contradict the north side claim, report literally seeing the cab get speared with a light pole, or report seeing the smoke trail visible in the security video.


1. There are numerous witnesses to the 757 impact.
2. There are NO witnesses to any 757 flying past or over the Pentagon after the massive explosion.
3. It is irrelevant what the video shows since it is of insufficient quality to ascertain exactly what it was or was not. The video is also irrelevant in terms of what all the other evidence, including the eyewitness testimony that converges on the conclusion that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.


You haven't yet refuted any of the evidence much less ALL of the evidence.


I have most certainly "dealt" with it. I provided images of all the "wreckage" and gave explanations for how it was planted. If you are claiming there was more wreckage that I haven't covered please provide evidence for it.


1. I can say with confidence that you have no basis for knowing if you have provided all of the photographs.
2. You have rendered all of the photos as irrelevant since you believe the wreckage in the photos you have access to as "planted." Yet you have provided not one bit of evidence to support your claim.



Thus you have demonstrated that, contrary to your claim, your photographs are "ambiguous."



Again....I never claimed that in regards to photographs of wreckage. I claimed that in regards to official reports of how the plane allegedly hit the building, the dimensions of a 757, the required wing tilt, and the impossible lack of foundation damage as a result.


You are claiming no 757 hit the Pentagon. Would you now like to retract that claim?



There was very little "wreckage".


You have provided no evidence for that assertion. You have a few photos that you claim is all the evidence you need (contrary to any investigative rules of evidence.) Then you dismiss the very photographs of the wreckage by complaining the wreckage "could have" been planted. Of course, also without providing one single basis for your claim.



It was easily planted and blown from the obliterated construction trailers.

Now I have answered your question twice.


As we can all see, Craig, you have gone to great lengths to avoid having to answer my question. My question concerns dealing with all of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please answer my question with evidence: Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event.

What did they see? What did they recover?

Please be specific.


kix

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I believe there was no plane and all is an inside job....th eother alternative is that the US gov, is run by a bunch of dolts and all the hoppla about military superiority is a lie...

heck even Colombian and Mexican drug dealers have better inteligence and security... so go figure and choose your side.... very inteligent or completelly retarded people in command...



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm


As we can all see, Craig, you have gone to great lengths to avoid having to answer my question. My question concerns dealing with all of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please answer my question with evidence: Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event.

What did they see? What did they recover?

Please be specific.


I was already quite specific and presented images of all known significant sized or semi reconizable wreckage.

If you have evidence that there is more than what I already listed please provide it.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic




Stick to the interviews, dude.


I don't get what your point is with this image. I only initially called it "collapsed" edge because powerhouse did in his graphic but clearly we were both pointing out where the left engine would be.

So.....please explain what is inaccurate about this image that shows you EXACTLY where the left engine would be in relation to this crystal clear shot of the very front of the undamaged foundation with virtually all the debris cleared away exactly where the engine would have impacted:



Because bottom line, these two images alone perfectly show how it's impossible for the 757 impact to be true.



I retract this and admit that my images are incorrect.

My mistake.

However this has no bearing on the fact that we should expect damage to the foundation in the images shown in the OP.

The OP is still 100% accurate but I added these images in haste last night and indicted the engine location incorrectly.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Any new posts from any member in this thread of an overtly aggressive nature that focuses on posters and not the subject matter will result in an immediate and permanent ban from ATS without warning.


Thank you, and I'm aware I took some liberties with my emotional rant. I apologize, and do not like to do that, but felt a need to defend myself. And when I do I do it solid and lay it down. I don't have time to mudwrestle, so know that.

however:

Craig; let's just say you've proven no foundation damage near the engine impact area, or even right at - if you ever find a photo without that debris pile - and could better prove absolutely no plane damage to that whole area (it would be minor damage and I think you'd find such a case nigh impossible to PROVE) - that would indeed cast MAJOR doubt on the official story. But to claim the case you present ends the debate - well you've just opened a can of worms. Some will just argue from incredulity, some will use incisive logic. But from past experience, people believe what tey do, as Shug says, and that's that.

I see no need to continue discussing the evidence with Craig. He knows it all already and is still where he is so I will not waste my time. So in the spirit of civil debate, I have nothing more I can say in response to the OP without risking my trickling time driving me to emotional excess, so I'll sit it out (or 'cave' as I'm sure some will call it)


[edit on 30-9-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   
In the following graphic, where the words "foundation intact" are actually written on the photo - the column behind it - what is that, and is it part of the original structure?

Second - the red circle depicting the outline of the engine - is this accurate? Because you've missed another point: if it is - it would have ploughed through that perfect lawn sometime before it hit the building and would have dug in and would probably even have ripped itself off the wing.

Thoughts?




[edit on 30-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



As we can all see, Craig, you have gone to great lengths to avoid having to answer my question. My question concerns dealing with all of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please answer my question with evidence: Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event.

What did they see? What did they recover?

Please be specific.



I was already quite specific and presented images of all known significant sized or semi reconizable wreckage.


The images you have presented show the remains of a 757 inside and outside of the Pentagon. They do not show the wreckage of anything else. You have presented no evidence of wreckage of anything else yet claim no 757 hit the Pentagon.

I will repeat my question again so there is no uncertainty that you are being asked to present evidence to support your claim: Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event.

If you are unwilling or unable to present any evidence of the wreckage recovered by those recovery workers or provide any evidence from anyone that 757 wreckage was planted, then we have absolutely no reason to accept your claims, Craig.

Please address all of the evidence, Craig, or tell us why you refuse to.







[edit on 30-9-2007 by seanm]

[edit on 30-9-2007 by seanm]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Craig--
I admire your "shoe leather" approach to investigation and attention to details!

Was wondering if you would be interested in unleashing CIT on some of the WTC7 issues??



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Then what is it then as CTers have pointed out before? Global Hawk? Missile? Plane?

I am not trying to get off topic (again, sorry Craig), however the only thing that needs to be illustrated is that it was not a plane. That proves there was a conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt (provided this can be illustrated).

Back on topic, lets take a look at the statement (I'm paraphrasing)
"You have to look at all the evidence"

The FDR info has the plane coming in at an angle, yet the hole in ring 'C' clearly shows damage to the walls but not the floor...




Lets not forget that the angle of incidence equals the angle of refraction so if the plane hit the ground at a slightly decending angle the hole in ring c should not have been on the ground but higher up on the wall.

The pysical evidence and the video show the plane hitting perfectly parallel to the ground, the official report and the FDR show a decent.

It cant be both, which one was it?

Since the video is part of the official story, it proves there is a cover up of some sort.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The pysical evidence and the video show the plane hitting perfectly parallel to the ground, the official report and the FDR show a decent.

It cant be both, which one was it?

Since the video is part of the official story, it proves there is a cover up of some sort.


Contradictory statements on how AA 77 approached the Pentagon do not automatically indicate a cover-up. They are irrelevant to the fact that all of the evidence conclusively demonstrates that a 757, AA 77, did in fact hit the Pentagon.

Craig's unwillingness or inability to address all of the evidence, including what wreckage was seen and recovered from the Pentagon by hundreds of recovery workers, renders his claims and "theory" meaningless.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm


The images you have presented show the remains of a 757 inside and outside of the Pentagon. They do not show the wreckage of anything else. You have presented no evidence of wreckage of anything else yet claim no 757 hit the Pentagon.


1. There is no proof the remains are really from a 757 at all let alone one that hit the building.
2. Our hypothesis is that NO airborn object hit the Pentagon and that the damage was created by pre-planted explosives and debris planted by the perpetrators.



I will repeat my question again so there is no uncertainty that you are being asked to present evidence to support your claim: Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event.


I described it in very specific detail for you.



If you are unwilling or unable to present any evidence of the wreckage recovered by those recovery workers or provide any evidence from anyone that 757 wreckage was planted, then we have absolutely no reason to accept your claims, Craig.

Please address all of the evidence, Craig, or tell us why you refuse to.


This thread is about the lack of foundation damage and I have already went off topic to address the relatively minuscule amount of wreckage that was found.

I most certainly have provided significant amounts of other evidence proving the plane didn't cause the physical damage. You can see a lot of the information in our forum here as well as in our documentary here.

So previously presented evidence beyond the realm of this thread's topic DOES exist and HAS been presented.

If you are not interested in reading about what has been already presented than is not my problem nor is it my responsibility to go over it all with you in this thread that has a very specific topic of discussion.

If you would like to discuss any of it deeper I suggest you create a thread about and perhaps I will join in.

But the fact is that this thread is specifically about the foundation damage.

The notion that this thread is the only evidence that I have addressed is patently false as anyone who is familiar with our work understands.

If you are not familiar with our work than please click on the links provide above, read, watch the presentations, and get back to me with any questions.

Thanks.

Now...do you have anything to add to this thread about the lack of damage to the foundation?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Craig--
I admire your "shoe leather" approach to investigation and attention to details!

Was wondering if you would be interested in unleashing CIT on some of the WTC7 issues??



Thanks!

Our investigation into the Pentagon attack continues.

After it's wrapped up we will certainly branch off into other aspects of 9/11 if need be.

While building 7 is very important and an obvious smoking gun.....we will likely move on to more neglected aspects such as the alleged hijacker contradictions and Shanksville.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join