Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

reply to post by seanm


You sound like a little kid with his finger in his ears screaming the same thing over and over to hide from the facts.

The only question I remember you asking was about the wreckage and I answered that in full.

Feel free to ask another but if it's not about the lack of foundation damage I suggest you start a new thread or use one of the already existing threads in The PentaCon forum

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The only question I remember you asking was about the wreckage and I answered that in full.

I wouldn't be asking a question that was already answered.

Why do you persist in your refusal to answer a straightforward question about you claim, Craig?

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The only question I remember you asking was about the wreckage and I answered that in full.

I wouldn't be asking a question that was already answered.

Why do you persist in your refusal to answer a straightforward question about you claim, Craig?

Ok I will repost my answer for you.

You asked:

Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event at the Pentagon.

To which I replied:

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.

Wreckage described as requested.

The fact that you refuse to accept my answer doesn't mean that I refused to answer.

Any other questions?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.

To suggest that anyone would believe you is beyond the pale, Craig.

Choosing to follow the official conspiracy theory on blind faith is not how a real critical thinker would operate.

If there were only an "official conspiracy theory." Sigh....

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.

Your the furthest thing from a "true skeptic" by your OWN admission, Craig. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Plus you refuse to reveal the first-hand accounts of the hundreds of recovery workers who removed the wreckage from the Pentagon, critical evidence to support your claim. That is strange behavior, indeed.

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

The entire body of evidence totally refutes your claim that NO 757 hit the Pentagon and you have indicated clearly that you have NO ability to refute that huge body of evidence, Craig.

Why can't you, Craig?

When will you admit what we ALL know, Craig?

Listen dude,

You aren't really replying or debating your are simply making blanket statements that I am incorrect.

If you have something specific to discuss let me know otherwise I think our discussion has run its course.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The only question I remember you asking was about the wreckage and I answered that in full.

I wouldn't be asking a question that was already answered.

Why do you persist in your refusal to answer a straightforward question about you claim, Craig?

Ok I will repost my answer for you.

You asked:

Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event at the Pentagon.

To which I replied:
Although your question is off topic everyone knows there was very little "wreckage" found and reported.

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

For the record: Craig has still not answered the question.

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.

You have provided no evidence that 757 wreckage was placed in or outside the Pentagon, much less the strange assertion that it could have been "easily" done. Mere assertions like this without evidence mean nothing.

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.

See above. Surely you must know that your mere assertions without evidence are meaningless, Craig. Plus your inability to describe how parts of wrecked 757 engines could be "easily" placed in the wreckage is a BIG giveaway to the weakness of your claims.

The fact that you refuse to accept my answer doesn't mean that I refused to answer.

I really don't think you have a clue how ridiculous that statement make you look, Craig. And you are on record, to boot. How bizarre.

We all know full well that your so-called "answers" have been nothing but full fledged, evidence-free, evasions of direct questions about your very own claims. Your evasions are getting more irrational. You simply could admit you don't have the evidence necessary to refute all of the independent evidence that demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon. Instead, you delve into irrational evasions to protect your "story."

Sigh... your evasions are so obvious, Craig.

Any other questions?

Many. But let's stick to the ones asked of you but not answered for now. Then we can move on to the many others.

Right now, you need to refute the evidence against the Official Graig Ranke Story.

Let's answer the questions, Craig.

You simply asked me to "describe" the wreckage.

I not only described it I provided images of all known significant sized pieces.

How could I possibly answer the question any more thoroughly than that?

In fact your question wasn't even a question it was a request.

I have complied with your request.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Listen dude,

You aren't really replying or debating your are simply making blanket statements that I am incorrect.

You haven't supported your claim. You know that. I have asked specifically that you address the evidence that refutes your claim. Please answer the questions.

If you have something specific to discuss let me know otherwise I think our discussion has run its course.

We are concerned with your claim in this thread that NO 757 hit the Pentagon. You have refused to address the evidence that refutes that claim.

Will you address the evidence or will you finally admit to us that you are unable to refute the evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon?

Remember, this is about your thread, your claims, and your credibility, Craig. You are on the line.

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Listen dude,

You aren't really replying or debating your are simply making blanket statements that I am incorrect.

You haven't supported your claim. You know that. I have asked specifically that you address the evidence that refutes your claim. Please answer the questions.

You asked me to "describe the wreckage".

I did.

However the wreckage does not dispute my claim.

Let me know if there is any specific evidence you want me to address and I will.

Simply claiming there is evidence without stating what that evidence is will not do.

We are concerned with your claim in this thread that NO 757 hit the Pentagon. You have refused to address the evidence that refutes that claim.

Will you address the evidence or will you finally admit to us that you are unable to refute the evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon?

Remember, this is about your thread, your claims, and your credibility, Craig. You are on the line.

You have not listed any so I am unaware of the evidence that which you speak.

Until you provide source for this evidence I can not address it.

So far you merely asked me to describe the wreckage and I have.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You simply asked me to "describe" the wreckage.

I not only described it I provided images of all known significant sized pieces.

You provided images you have access to and claim they prove a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon. You claimed the photo of wreckage of the 757 "could have been planted" without a stitch of supporting evidence or how it could have been accomplished.

How could I possibly answer the question any more thoroughly than that?

Obviously, by answering the question I asked. Shall I repeat? I guess I have to:

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?

In fact your question wasn't even a question it was a request.I have complied with your request.

No, you haven't at all, Craig, as we can all see. You just continue to discredit yourself.

I think it is high time for you to admit that your speculation about no 757 hitting the Pentagon is nothing more than speculation. That would be the honorable thing to do. Admitting one is wrong is not a sin, it's a virtue.

As it stands, you give all indications that you will continue to push the Official Craig Ranke Story at all costs and against all evidence to the contrary. You appear as one whose invested too much in your "official story" to admit you are wrong.

What will it be, Craig? Continued evasion? Or will you finally admit that you cannot refute all of the evidence that a757 hit the Pentagon?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Listen dude,

You aren't really replying or debating your are simply making blanket statements that I am incorrect.

You haven't supported your claim. You know that. I have asked specifically that you address the evidence that refutes your claim. Please answer the questions.

You asked me to "describe the wreckage".

I did.

However the wreckage does not dispute my claim.

Let me know if there is any specific evidence you want me to address and I will.

Simply claiming there is evidence without stating what that evidence is will not do.

We are concerned with your claim in this thread that NO 757 hit the Pentagon. You have refused to address the evidence that refutes that claim.

Will you address the evidence or will you finally admit to us that you are unable to refute the evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon?

Remember, this is about your thread, your claims, and your credibility, Craig. You are on the line.

You have not listed any so I am unaware of the evidence that which you speak.

Until you provide source for this evidence I can not address it.

So far you merely asked me to describe the wreckage and I have.

Admitting to us that you do not know the evidence that supports the conclusion that a 757 hit the Pentagon is quite amazing, Craig.

One has to wonder why you would even bother being here.

Originally posted by seanm

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?

If you are suggesting there is more wreckage it is your responsibility to provide evidence for it.


But so far there is only evidence of this being 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.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by seanm

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?

If you are suggesting there is more wreckage it is your responsibility to provide evidence for it.

I am quite clear that you are supposed to know what wreckage was brought out by hundreds of recovery workers if the wreckage was NOT from a 757 as you claim. It is YOUR responsibility and yours alone, Craig. Continued evasion of your responsibility just hurts your case further.

By admitting that you do not have the evidence, then you are only confirming even further that you haven't done the most elementary research of the evidence.

You need to have a heart to heart talk with yourself tonight, Craig. I'll check in tomorrow morning to see if you will finally stop the evasions and address the evidence.

I just want to take a moment and thank seanm for proving Craig right.

For someone to come and deny and deny, and refuse to listen to answers, but not give any input themselves must mean CIT is really onto something but it can't be spun, just outright ignored and dismissed

Seriously, a true skeptic would not take spoonfed info from ANY source, the government, the media, or online sources. They view evidence for themselves and come to reasonable conclusions.

If you view all the evidence for yourself, you see that the official (conspiracy) 'story' of 'brown men with funny religions and accents' that 'live in caves' and 'can't fly a sessna' flew a jumbo jet not only at a descending angle into a short buiding but also flew that same plane at a straight angle to match both the FDR and the security video ... well ... you must believe they have some sort of interdimensional technology as well

Seriously, if you believe the official story, here is the challenge. Write the government with all you your faith in them and request all the video and audio evidence they are witholding to put an end to all this 'silly' conspiracy that you can only debunk by playing the 3 monkeys of hear, see, and speak no evil.

The burden of proof IS on the government ... they are the ones that sold us on it being terrorists ... some of whom have been found to be alive, but are still part of the passenger list. They are the ones that are holding back 90%+ of the evidence and telling stories that don't add up.

As a prosecutor ... which is the role the government is playing in this sick game of life and death ... they must PROVE beyond reasonable doubt.

That means, people like Craig just need to prove their story is wrong, and that should create enough doubt in a reasonable person's head.

But, I commend people who can discuss things with a unbending opponent ... it takes a lot of patience.


To be on topic ... which it seems people who disagree cannot do very well ... explain how the foundation and the lawn are both damage free ... either by a descent or a straight on impact. if it is going down, there should be a huge divot in the concrete, major foundation damage of 6 tons crashing down on even re-inforced concreted would make some decent damage (especially if hollow aluminum can slice through reinforced steel and concrete of WTC). If it was straight on, why is the grass unscaved and the front of the foundation even and unbroken?

If you cannot stick to the topic, then, PLEASE, by all means, CREATE a NEW thread and discuss your points, thoughts, and feelings. Hopefully they can be discussed there with civility and respect.

I have read many links by senior members on disinfo agents, and usually that isn't what they do, they would rather frustrate posters and derail threads that are getting on the right track or proving things that are inconvenient for keeping the status quo in a debacle such as this. I am not calling anyone anything, since, actions speak for themselves. Be respectful and contribute something of value, or, just keep the elementary school nuh-uhs away from the topics.

I will step in and say this little pattern is getting old. Seanm: I know from experience that Craig will admit only what he does and has. We all know there's mor than that in photos, and more yet in various accounts. All of it could be planted by hand and ttrucks, or by a plane crashing there. But that's a half-decent montage he's willing to admit (how much did that strut weigh?). Fair nuff I say. Points taken.

What I'm saying I guess, and this is just my feeling, is please quit making him repeat himself so repetitively. If there's something you're wanting him to find and admit, my guess is you know what it is, so why not just share it with the rest of us yourself and then maybe we can see why you think he's being evasive?

As you remind us, this thread is about the 757 impact debate supposedly being terminated, but as Craig reminds us, it's also about the alleged lack of foundation damage. I think we've shown the former is incorrect, but from a logic standpoint, if the foundation really did sustain no plane damage as alleged, that pretty much proves however many parts were described or photod were in fact planted. If there is damage, scraping, cracks. etc, that probably shows they were planed by a crashing plane. Otherwise perhaps by hand and truck. Hardly anyone's still talking about the foundation itself, and what damage there was, should be, where, and what that means in the context of this totally open debate.

What's been shown here by CIT, what hasn't, and what does any of it prove?

My orignal thoughts on foundation rebar may've been wrong, and on sticking to core issues Craig's winning here. Someone add something good!

Hate to be a guy to burst all of your bubbles but i think this is going way to far! the truth is that all the events on 9/11 have happened and the amount of evidence to support both sides is huge!

My point is, that no matter if you found the biggest piece of evidence they would always find some excuse to support there case and vice versa!

Lets drop the subject and let the people who died that day rest in peace!

Lets concentrate on whats important now! no point dwelling in the past!

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

My orignal thoughts on foundation rebar may've been wrong, and on sticking to core issues Craig's winning here. Someone add something good!

seanm doesn't have anything he is just being a bully.

Obviously the posters here aren't falling for it.

But I'd like to reply to your comment on LCF and ask that you post my reply there.

You said:

The possible impact spot remains either damaged or buried in rubble in ALL shots. Nothing is proven.

This implies we should expect the foundation damage to be limited to where the foundation meets the facade.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Plus there is no reason to suggest that we should expect foundation damage from only the left engine.

The entire plane would cause SOME damage likely all the way in to the C-ring.

The debris is cleared away in this image where we should expect to see damage yet there is none.

Originally posted by The-Brown-One
Hate to be a guy to burst all of your bubbles but i think this is going way to far! the truth is that all the events on 9/11 have happened and the amount of evidence to support both sides is huge!

My point is, that no matter if you found the biggest piece of evidence they would always find some excuse to support there case and vice versa!

Lets drop the subject and let the people who died that day rest in peace!

Lets concentrate on whats important now! no point dwelling in the past!

I guess you forgot about the innocent people who are dying every day with this fraudulent war on terror used as justification.

We do this for justice for the 9/11 victims.

The countless 10's of thousands of murders since 9/11 are what's stopping them from resting in peace.

a plane did not hit the pentagon. it was a cruise missile or some similar technology, at most.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
I just want to take a moment and thank seanm for proving Craig right.

For someone to come and deny and deny, and refuse to listen to answers, but not give any input themselves must mean CIT is really onto something but it can't be spun, just outright ignored and dismissed

Deny what, exactly?

Seriously, a true skeptic would not take spoonfed info from ANY source, the government, the media, or online sources. They view evidence for themselves and come to reasonable conclusions.

A TRUE skeptic questions everybody about everything. I question Craig about his "evidence".

If you view all the evidence for yourself, you see that the official (conspiracy) 'story' of 'brown men with funny religions and accents' that 'live in caves' and 'can't fly a sessna' flew a jumbo jet not only at a descending angle into a short buiding but also flew that same plane at a straight angle to match both the FDR and the security video ... well ... you must believe they have some sort of interdimensional technology as well

That statement pegs you as one who cheerfully accepts being spoonfed the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Conspiracy Theory Why is that?

Seriously, if you believe the official story, here is the challenge. Write the government with all you your faith in them and request all the video and audio evidence they are witholding to put an end to all this 'silly' conspiracy that you can only debunk by playing the 3 monkeys of hear, see, and speak no evil.

I find it interesting that missed the part that this thread is about whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon or not. Instead, you delve off into the most prominent strawman argument of the 9/11 Truth Movement: that there is some "mysterious official story." I am not sure why you would persist in perpetuating the myth other than, like Craig, you need to invent a bogeyman as a shield from the overwhelming evidence of what happened on 9/11. The strawman claim of an "official story" was knocked down years ago.

The burden of proof IS on the government ... they are the ones that sold us on it being terrorists ... some of whom have been found to be alive, but are still part of the passenger list. They are the ones that are holding back 90%+ of the evidence and telling stories that don't add up.

The government has nothing to "prove" and never did. This is where you accepted the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement at face value and never looked back. The burden of proof remains on those like Craig to refute all of the evidence of several massive investigations, the data, methodology, and conclusions of which are available to the world, including the experts in the relative fields; as well as the thousands of independent eyewitnesses of all events.

As a prosecutor ... which is the role the government is playing in this sick game of life and death ... they must PROVE beyond reasonable doubt.

If it gets the chance to prosecute bin Laden, they will. In the meantime, Criag needs to address the evidence about his claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

That means, people like Craig just need to prove their story is wrong, and that should create enough doubt in a reasonable person's head.

No doubt you realize by now that the government doesn't have a "story." What we have is the massive evidence that the 9/11 Truth Movement wants to avoid and will resort to every evasion and logical fallacy to spoonfeed ITS story onto unsuspecting souls.

But, I commend people who can discuss things with a unbending opponent ... it takes a lot of patience.

My persistence has paid off in demonstrating what has been true of every truther who is asked to support their claims. Craig is a classic truther, unable to address legitimate questions concerning their claims. He is on record now.

Too bad for Craig.