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: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

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.


Very very true.

Excellent post.

This image shows the undamaged foundation on the other side of the hole with debris cleared away:


There are many fatal contradictions in the official Pentagon story proving a military deception.

seanm's attempt to derail the thread with his generalizations that ignore previously presented evidence is obvious.

1. The truth movement only needs to provide one fatal anomaly in this complex operation to demonstrate a military deception and is not required to have an explanation for all aspects.

2. It most certainly is the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to prove all aspects of the official story with evidence yet in this they have failed on numerous levels.

The burden of proof is on them. All we are doing is showing how they have failed and how their explanation of what happened is woefully inadequate.




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
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?


No. That is a temporary support column put up after the attack.



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?



If you read further back I have retracted that image as inaccurate.

The engine would have been further to the right as CL claims.

HOWEVER......in regards to your question.....yes.

This image from the ASCE report literally depicts the engine burrowing into the foundation:



Clearly the engine would have also dug into the ground if the plane approached low and level like the rest of the damage requires and like they depict in the security video here:


However the government released FDR contradicts all of this and reports a significant descent angle like this:




Either way both government provided data sets (FDR and security video) fatally contradict the physical damage.


[edit on 30-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

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.


Um, they dont automatically indicate a cover up, however when 2 sources are contradictory to each other they cant both be right. if its not a cover up one still prove the other wrong.

If the plane came in level it indicates the FDR is wrong, and those dont generally lie. If it came in at an angle the video and pyhsical evidence are contradictory to this.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Exactly.

This is a classic attempt on seanm's part to shift the burden of proof.

It is the government's conspiracy theory that Al Quada hijackers took command of flight 77 and flew it into the Pentagon so it is their burden to provide evidence proving this.

We are simply demonstrating how the evidence they provide is not only insufficient, but also proves their assertion incorrect.



[edit on 30-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 30-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Does anyone have access to the first responder pics of the green firetrucks next to the 20 by 40 or so smoking hole? I used to have it saved before some hacker made me reboot my puter. That single shot, clearly showing no grass damage and lack of wreckage, in my mind, was the single most damning evidence against a plane strike.
Thanks
Sidenote, be careful playing yahoo games, that's where they nailed me.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.


Unfortunately, that claim is an unsupported assertion provided without evidence.


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.


Yet you are unwilling to deal with the evidence when asked.



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.



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.


Let's repeat your own statements in this thread, Craig:

- There really is no way to debate this any longer and if this physical evidence doesn't convince 757 impact proponents like Adam than nothing will and it's clear they have no interest in the truth.

- No matter how hard you spin to protect the official story it's clear that ALL the evidence points to a military deception. Eyewitnesses, FDR, as well as physical evidence.


You have yet to deal with ALL the evidence as I have requested and still refuse to, Craig. No matter how you try to wiggle around, your claim is still that NO 757 hit the Pentagon. You need to address ALL of the evidence.


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.


You could have easily pointed me directly to a link to the answer to my specific question. You didn't and you haven't.

We need to see your evidence of what wreckage was removed from the Pentagon. You can start with the statements of the hundreds of recovery workers of what they removed.


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


The topic remains discussing your claim that NO 757 hit the Pentagon.


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.


It is your responsibility to support your claims in full with evidence. You are on record here as refusing to.


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


The thread, as you indicated in the title, "Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon," is clear. The debate is clearly not over and I have pointed out numerous times how you are unable to address specific questions about evidence and resort to assertions and undemonstrated claims as your "evidence."

We need for you to address all the evidence to support your claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon starting with what hundreds of recovery workers removed from the Pentagon.

Please don't evade the question.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Exactly.

This is a classic attempt on seanm's part to shift the burden of proof.

It is the government's conspiracy theory that Al Quada hijackers took command of flight 77 and flew it into the Pentagon so it is their burden to provide evidence proving this.

We are simply demonstrating how the evidence they provide is not only insufficient, but also proves their assertion incorrect.


Whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon is at issue here. It involves no conspiracy theory. It is a direct issue of evidence.

The evidence that concludes that a 757 hit the Pentagon does not come from the government, as Craig would hope we would believe. In fact, the evidence comes from numerous independent sources. The sum total of all that evidence points to the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Craig is making every effort to dismiss the evidence he does not like. He knows the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. That is precisely why he refuses to discuss all the evidence and wants to limit discussion of evidence here.

I think it is apparent to all that Craig cannot support his claim.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Did you watch our interview with the cab driver?


I just did. And added: Lloyd England was programmed. He seems sincere, but he might have been programmed, which is not as hard too do as it seems. Many nice designer drugs out there now.

Craig, if your four witnesses are on the level, there must be in serious danger of disappearing (or re-educated). Have you explained this to them?

Or do you reckon that if something happens to them it will vindicate their testimony? As I´ve said... Dangerous territory.

I´ll help by posting links to the Pentacon, and the foundation evidence to blogs and other forums.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   


Originally posted by seanm
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.


Ok, then how about this:

If there are four eyewitnesses that say they saw the plane come in on an entirely differnt flight path then either they are lying, or all the other eyewitnesses are lying.

In such a case none of the eye witness accounts are valid, and are all invalidated. What are we left with?

1) Flight Data Recorder information showing a particular flight path, and angle of descent.
2) Pictures showing minimal damage to the foundation at the entry point
3) A security video showing a flying object on a horizontal flight path
4) Security video footage showing a smoketrail without a shadow

And ofcourse:
5) Pictures Air plane remains on the lawn and in the building
6) Pictures of remains in the building
7) A round hole in the C-Ring

Which evidence is irrefutable?

1, 2, 7.

3 & 4 could be easily faked by the planners.
5 & 6 could be easily planted by the planners.
7 is evidence that something made a hole in the wall.

If 1 & 2 are irrefutable, there should have been substantial damage to the foundation at the entry point.

If you deny 1 & 2 are irrefutable the left engine would have dug a crater in the foundation. Denying this is denying simple physics. If you place the engine anywhere else the story falls apart. Like "the magic bullet theory", you are trying to make us believe in "the magic foundation theory".

As far as a missle goes: mis-information at best to keep the discussion going. (or support the faked security footage)

[edit on 30-9-2007 by Truth4hire]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm


Whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon is at issue here. It involves no conspiracy theory. It is a direct issue of evidence.


Since the official explanation IS a conspiracy theory it most certainly DOES involve one.

The evidence they have provided contradicts their theory.

End of story.



The evidence that concludes that a 757 hit the Pentagon does not come from the government, as Craig would hope we would believe. In fact, the evidence comes from numerous independent sources. The sum total of all that evidence points to the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.


Prove it.

My claim is that the evidence is insufficient and even contradictory to their own story.

I have backed up this claim in numerous ways.

If you disagree you must demonstrate how I am wrong.

You have completely failed in doing so and have instead chosen to shift the burden of proof in a desperate attempt to derail the discussion.

This is a logical fallacy and therefore a clear cop-out in debate.

It is a typical tactic for people who blindly support the official conspiracy theory and by simply stating that "numerous independent sources" have came to this conclusion without even bothering to back up this claim you have proven yourself to be a blind follower.

That makes you the conspiracy theorist asserting a mere belief based on faith while using logical fallacies in discussion and it makes me the true skeptic using real critical thinking skills and requiring solid evidence.




Craig is making every effort to dismiss the evidence he does not like. He knows the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. That is precisely why he refuses to discuss all the evidence and wants to limit discussion of evidence here.

I think it is apparent to all that Craig cannot support his claim.


Why does the burden of proof that a 757 hit the building fall squarely on my shoulders?

That notion is ludicrous.

I am not the President nor have I ever asserted this ridiculous conspiracy theory.

I have merely shown how their evidence is insufficient and even proves their story false.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Did you watch our interview with the cab driver?


I just did. And added: Lloyd England was programmed. He seems sincere, but he might have been programmed, which is not as hard too do as it seems. Many nice designer drugs out there now.

Craig, if your four witnesses are on the level, there must be in serious danger of disappearing (or re-educated). Have you explained this to them?

Or do you reckon that if something happens to them it will vindicate their testimony? As I´ve said... Dangerous territory.

I´ll help by posting links to the Pentacon, and the foundation evidence to blogs and other forums.


Certainly they now understand the implications of what they know and no doubt they are scared. We have had some dialog with them after the release of the documentary but minimally.

People are dying every day because of this fraudulent war on terror.

I think it would be more damaging to the perps to "get rid" of these key witnesses at this point. as their testimony is already out there.

Obviously I don't want harm to come to the witnesses (or myself for that matter) but we are talking about mass murder, mass treason, and even genocide when you consider the amount of people killed in Iraq and that will be killed in the future due to DU poisoning.

We can not afford to remain silent.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Thanks for the clarification. When things get heated I tend to stop reading. I shouldn't I guess.


There is something very wrong there then. I see from the second graphic you posted in response to me that the circle depicting the engine outline overlaps the grass. From aerial photos I've seen of the outside of the Pentagon there is a strip of concrete that appears to be maybe 10 ft wide immediately in front of the foundation. This appears to be intact and with no markings. According to the picture, that just isn't possible. Allowing for a level strike, when the aircraft hot the building, the aircraft wouldn't just go straight in.

Based off the FDR data, it was descending, and I figure the angle was such that the engines would leave SOMETHING in the form of witness marks on the outside of the building.

Let me go find a couple of videos and post a new thread. Something else you might be interested in...


[edit on 30-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon is at issue here. It involves no conspiracy theory. It is a direct issue of evidence.



Since the official explanation IS a conspiracy theory it most certainly DOES involve one. The evidence they have provided contradicts their theory.
End of story.


There is no government "theory" that AA77 hit the Pentagon. There is direct evidence that it did provided by many different sources. The issue of a 757 hitting the Pentagon or not is one of evidence. You claim a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. ALL of the evidence from many different independent sources supports the inescapable conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That is a conclusion from evidence, not theory.

You must refute that evidence. The burden of proof is on you alone to demonstrate that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon by refuting all of the evidence that it did.



The evidence that concludes that a 757 hit the Pentagon does not come from the government, as Craig would hope we would believe. In fact, the evidence comes from numerous independent sources. The sum total of all that evidence points to the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.



Prove it. My claim is that the evidence is insufficient and even contradictory to their own story. I have backed up this claim in numerous ways.


No, you have claimed that we must limit the discussion and not include ALL of the evidence. You have refused to provide evidence of what wreckage was removed; you use photographs which support your case then unilaterally dismiss other photos that do not support your case; you refuse to address the evidence when asked.


If you disagree you must demonstrate how I am wrong.


I demonstrated that you cannot support your case that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.


You have completely failed in doing so and have instead chosen to shift the burden of proof in a desperate attempt to derail the discussion. This is a logical fallacy and therefore a clear cop-out in debate.


I'll remind you of your own statements in this thread asserting you are right and there is no debate:

- There really is no way to debate this any longer and if this physical evidence doesn't convince 757 impact proponents like Adam than nothing will and it's clear they have no interest in the truth.

- There is no room for debate in this regard.

- I am not here for debate.


So much for Craig's concept of "debate."


It is a typical tactic for people who blindly support the official conspiracy theory and by simply stating that "numerous independent sources" have came to this conclusion without even bothering to back up this claim you have proven yourself to be a blind follower.


Evasion noted, Craig. Your admission that you do NOT know of the evidence presented is just another clear indication that your "theory" must not consider any contrary evidence. Now we are clear why you refuse to answer my simple and direct question concerning the recovery of the wreckage from the Pentagon.

I think it is apparent to all that Craig cannot support his claim.



Why does the burden of proof that a 757 hit the building fall squarely on my shoulders? That notion is ludicrous. I am not the President nor have I ever asserted this ridiculous conspiracy theory.


Evasion noted. The burden of proof falls on YOUR shoulders to refute all of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Your attempts to avoid doing so are crystal clear.


I have merely shown how their evidence is insufficient and even proves their story false.


By deliberately ignoring and dismissing evidence you don't like????

Simply amazing. How long do you think you can avoid the evidence and pretend your audience is not intelligent?

So, Craig, when will you address the evidence and answer my question?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm


By deliberately ignoring and dismissing evidence you don't like????

Simply amazing. How long do you think you can avoid the evidence and pretend your audience is not intelligent?

So, Craig, when will you address the evidence and answer my question?




I avoid no evidence and have directly addressed all evidence that you have brought to the discussion.

I have successfully demonstrated how the evidence the government provides is insufficient and even fatally contradicts itself.

The burden of proof for their 757 impact conspiracy theory is on them and they have failed.

If you disagree it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate how I am wrong or admit that you disagree solely based on faith.

But using the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof will not suffice as it is clear that I am not the creator of the 757 impact conspiracy theory that is in question here.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm
[Simply amazing. How long do you think you can avoid the evidence and pretend your audience is not intelligent?

So, Craig, when will you address the evidence and answer my question?


Let´s then dismiss evidence which can be tampered with....

1) Dismiss ALL eye-witnesses (can be programmed or lie)
2) Dismiss plane wreckage (could have been planted)
3) Dismiss remains found (yes, could have been planted)
4) Dismiss security video (could have been altered)
5) Dismiss broken light poles (could have been staged)
6) Dismiss explosion and interior damage (could have been staged)

Let´s then introduce evidence which could not have been tampered with:

1) FDR
2) Intact foundation

Need I say more?

Or do you have another opinion on what is irrefutable?

Forensics over eye-witnesses any day my friend.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The FDR is most definitely fraudulent.

This has to be the case because it does not match the physical evidence.

However the physical evidence doesn't match the eyewitnesses, the FDR, or the ASCE report, so it is fraudulent as well.

Bottom line the evidence they present proves a military deception no matter how you slice it.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The FDR is most definitely fraudulent.

This has to be the case because it does not match the physical evidence.


Sorry, this was entrapment. If you claim the FDR is irrefutable evidence the concrete cannot be intact. If you claim that the FDR is wrong (which it normally cannot be) you must admit tampering hence... foul play.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


Let look at the most important issue. Not one... i repeat not ONE witness to ANY plane flying over the pentagon at the time of the explosion.

2 of the 4 witnesses CIT produces in his video claim to have SEEN THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!

There were over 100 witnesses that saw the plane heading directly to the Pentagon.... MANY of them SAW THE IMPACT.

Again...not ONE witness has come forward to support CIT's claim. Yet there were MANY that saw the impact.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

By deliberately ignoring and dismissing evidence you don't like????

Simply amazing. How long do you think you can avoid the evidence and pretend your audience is not intelligent?

So, Craig, when will you address the evidence and answer my question?





I avoid no evidence and have directly addressed all evidence that you have brought to the discussion.


Evasion noted. You refuse to address the evidence that exists.


I have successfully demonstrated how the evidence the government provides is insufficient and even fatally contradicts itself.


Only in your imagination. You need to address us, Craig. Sorry, that's reality.


The burden of proof for their 757 impact conspiracy theory is on them and they have failed.


Sorry, evasion of your responsibility is not acceptable. The evidence from all sources supports the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. You REFUSE to address that evidence when asked.


If you disagree it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate how I am wrong or admit that you disagree solely based on faith.


The burden of proof for your own claims rests on your own shoulders, Craig. You cannot shift responsibility for YOUR claims. No excuse will be accepted from you that you have permission to evade your responsibility.


But using the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof will not suffice as it is clear that I am not the creator of the 757 impact conspiracy theory that is in question here.


By persisting to resort in the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof for your own claims, you telegraph your total lack of knowledge or care for the evidence. The truth is not your goal. Insulting our intelligence is not acceptable.

Not have you only revealed yourself as not caring for the truth, Craig, you have yet to address my question concerning the wreckage retrieved from the Pentagon by hundreds of honorable human beings.

What we clearly all see here is that you cannot refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Craig Ranke is on record as evading every question concerning evidence he cannot refute.

If you were in command of the facts, you would have long-since been able to address ALL questions concerning what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

It is on the record, Craig. Right here for all to examine and see for themselves. Tell us all, right here, Craig Ranke, do you REALLY want to discredit yourself so badly right here in front of everyone?

Or do you want to fess up that you are either unable or unwilling to address the evidence and questions you have been asked?

The choice is yours, Craig Ranke, to come clean. No one will fault you for being wrong or mistaken. You can admit it right here. We will, however, call you to account when you are deliberately evasive, refuse to answer questions about YOUR claims, and arbitrarily dismiss all of the evidence you do not like.

The choice is yours, Craig. What will it be, address the evidence and our questions, or continue to evade them?

Remember, your credibility, badly damaged by you alone, is at stake, Craig Lanke.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


Let look at the most important issue. Not one... i repeat not ONE witness to ANY plane flying over the pentagon at the time of the explosion.

2 of the 4 witnesses CIT produces in his video claim to have SEEN THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!

There were over 100 witnesses that saw the plane heading directly to the Pentagon.... MANY of them SAW THE IMPACT.

Again...not ONE witness has come forward to support CIT's claim. Yet there were MANY that saw the impact.


Will you stay on topic please?

This thread is not about the flyover hypothesis.

But YOU DO NOT KNOW what witnesses reported because the 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered.

So nobody knows.

However the very fact that they confiscated the calls AT ALL is evidence that they have something to hide.

To suggest we should simply trust the finite number of mainstream media accounts without bothering to confirm them makes zero sense for any true skeptic. Choosing to follow the official conspiracy theory on blind faith is not how a real critical thinker would operate.

We are true skeptics and have directly confirmed many accounts first-hand and as a result a military deception has been proven because the plane was on the north side of the citgo station.

This is not directly refuted by another witness in the entire investigative body of evidence confirmed or not.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join