It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Response to Arabesque's latest personal attack hit-piece against CIT

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:08 AM

Of these eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT, William Lagasse falsely indicated where light poles were knocked down, while denying that others were knocked down. Amazingly, CIT implies that this does not affect the reliability of his flight path account—in fact, Ranke brazenly and disingenuously claims that it makes his testimony about the flight path even more credible:

“Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.”

How could Lagasse “not see the light poles” as Ranke suggests if he claimed that “there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”—a false statement? If Lagasse didn’t see or remember seeing these light poles on the ground on 9/11, he presumably would have replied “I don’t know”, instead of “none of these light poles… were knocked down”. Lagasse also misplaced the location of the taxi cab to the location where he thought the light poles were knocked down. This factual error strongly suggests that Lagasse witnessed the plane where the actual light poles were knocked down—not where he mistakenly thought they were knocked down. Along with incorrectly placing the location of the damaged Taxi Cab and light poles, at the very least this puts the accuracy of his “smoking gun” testimony in doubt.

Lagasse said multiple times in our interview that he did not see the plane hit any poles. By ignoring this fact and associating Lagasse's belief that the downed poles line up with where he saw the plane fly (as anyone would) Arabesque is merely using yet another logical fallacy as a means to erroneously dismiss Lagasse's corroborated north side claim. The light poles were an insignificant blip in this extremely significant and chaotic day and there is no reason that ANYONE would take special note as to their exact location. This has no bearing whatsoever on his placement of the plane which is corroborated by everyone else. Why would Arabesque resort to such faulty logic in order to dismiss such important and strong testimony that proves the official story false? Does this indicate a personal stake in the government version of the event?

In summary, CIT has made these misleading claims about Lagasse:

1. They claim that he “did not see the light poles” when Lagasse specifically claims that light poles were “not knocked down” and others were “knocked down” in an incorrect location.
2. They claim that because he misplaced the location of the light poles it makes his testimony of the flight path more reliable, despite giving factually incorrect information

There is nothing misleading about reporting Lagasse's statements! He does not claim to have seen a plane hit any poles and specifically says that he did NOT see this. This is a FACT supported with video taped testimony that Lagasse has never contradicted. Arabesque is lying by calling our 100% supported claims misleading. Lagasse's statement about the downed light poles that he only learned about after the violent event has zero bearing on his corroborated placement of the plane.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:26 AM

A C-130 “Diversion”, “Planted” Light Poles, Psy-op Trees, Radar Data and Videos “controlled by the perps”, and “Ludicrous” Theories

CIT was asked about the lack of witnesses for his theory on the Loose Change Forum, “Why isn't there even ONE person, NOT EVEN ONE, who said they saw AA 77 fly past the Pentagon?” Ranke responded, “Quite simple. Because their accounts were confused with the C-130 and blown off as irrelevant.” Ranke also made the equally dubious claim that “the plane flying AWAY from the building in a fast ascent over the Potomac would seem quite normal and would be overshadowed by the incredible explosion and massive fireball that would serve as a very effective diversion.”

Ranke repeats the claim that the C-130 served to confuse eyewitnesses about the commercial airliner that “barely flew over” the Pentagon: “There are dozens of eyewitnesses to the plane..... We know that a plane flew over… most eyewitnesses were interviewed after the fact and already knew what the media said happened so very few were interviewed without a predetermined mindset. Anybody on the other side that saw a plane flyover would not be published as an eyewitness and their report of what they saw would be confused with the C-130 and blown off as unimportant and therefore never published…” Further to this scenario, Ranke insinuates that these planes were all intentionally coordinated as part of the Pentagon deception: “They purposefully made sure that other ‘mysterious’ planes were placed in the same place at the same time so the accounts would be blended.” Video evidence captured the C-130 on I-395, about 15 seconds after the alleged impact high in the sky, showing the clear absurdity of confusing it with the plane alleged to hit the Pentagon.

Arabesque is once again taking statements out of context and misrepresenting our claims. We assert that REPORTS of the C-130 and the white E4B were used ambiguously after the fact as a method of confusion. But the INITIAL reports about a "2nd plane" or "jet" that was seen "shadowing" AA77 and that "veered away" over the building was not identified as a C-130 or any specific plane at first.

But we certainly have NEVER implied that the C-130 really behaved this way. Quite the contrary. We have been instrumental in proving that he DID NOT behave that way since the pilot himself says he was so far away that he didn't even know the source of the smoke was the Pentagon at first.

We have new interviews helping to expose all of this that I am currently working on compiliing but Arabesque is once again taking claims out of context from a while back to paint a completely inaccurate picture of our beliefs as a straw man argument.

Ranke is suggesting that witnesses were not observant enough to tell the difference between the E-4B doomsday plane on the other side of the river by the White House, a C-130 flying significantly higher than the third plane—a jetliner which “fooled” witnesses into believing that it crashed into the Pentagon while discreetly “flying by” the highway on other side? All of this without anyone reporting or noticing the difference between the C-130 and what was mostly described as a large commercial jetliner as it flew over the Pentagon and the highway on the other side? Ranke’s speculative claims are helpful in that they reveal just how absurd the flyover theory really is; CIT is forced to rely on ridiculous double standards of evidence and factually challenged claims to make their case.

Absolutely incorrect. Arabesque is erroneously and shamelessly TELLING the reader what we believe while deliberately twisting our claims out of context.

He is misrepresenting how the confusion was carried out. The E4B was a white jet. The decoy plane was reported as being white by the people of Arlington. The C-130 was blended with reports of this mysterious "2nd plane" that followed AA77 and veered off over the building.

All reports were ambiguous and most did not specifically refer to any kind of plane or jet and the ones that did are dubious because they contradict the C-130 pilot.

Everyone will see real soon as our next presentation will break it all down.

But bottom line.....Arabesque is not talking about our theory.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I believe that 9/11 is 100% proven to be an inside job even without the evidence CIT presents.

Okay... then stop right there for a moment.

Clearly, the idea of exposing the "inside job" to a broader audience is critical for the idea of justice. There will not be a call for the of rolling heads unless "John Q. Public" and his senator are convinced there are wrong-doers who must be dealt with.

Think what you might of the angry rhetoric of the black-shirt crowd at ground zero... it's not working... it never worked... and it's hurting more than you can imagine.

Next point...

As long as people call it a "conspiracy theory" it will be relegated to being ignored, ridicule, marginalized, and demonized.

The idea of a "9/11 Conspiracy Theory" being marginalized is only the case in so far as we enable ridicule of the idea of "conspiracy theories." The actions, attitude, rote repetition of erroneous theories, and baseless speculations of the vast majority of those saying "9/11 was an inside job" are what is causing the notion of "conspiracy theory" to be ridiculed and demonized.

So we have two very important and related points...

1) You believe the attacks of 9/11 are an inside job

2) You bemoan the ridicule associated with "conspiracy theory"

With so much at stake, and the broader acceptance of "inside job" being tied directly to the perceived credibility of those saying it, why aren't you taking the higher road and differentiating yourself from those who are marginalized?

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I have differentiated myself by doing the job the government and media have failed to do.

Listen......I don't go around bullhorning or getting in people's faces OR calling them "government agents" for simply not "agreeing" with me.

That is nothing but a smear tactic put out by our detractors to frame us as bullies or out of control nut cases.

I am quite respectful and present myself as a professional, concerned, aware, and researched citizen.

But I DO react strongly to direct attacks and I DO convey an extreme passion for justice and willingness to sacrifice for this information war which is exactly what this is.

I refuse to be apologetic for that.

We aren't dealing with a simple "issue" or "conspiracy theory" to be discussed, debated, and agreed to disagree upon while we all go home to turn on Dancing with the Stars when the day is done.

We are working against a global psychological operation that has largely been successful manipulating the minds of literally BILLIONS of people and has been cemented further on a daily basis with systemic propaganda and continued programming.

We must identify the enemy and deal with them appropriately.

THANK GOD for people like We Are Change who are willing to hold Bill Mahr and the rest of the media to the fire.

THANK GOD for the activists that take an aggressive approach by confronting public figures in public.

There has to be a progressive movement that continues to get MORE aggressive or nothing will come of this.

That is my belief.

Everyone has to find a balance in their approach but if the movement is completely devoid of passion and anger about such an incredible atrocity that has such a stranglehold on the minds of the masses it will be left in the dust.

Everyone has a place and I guess yours is running a conspiracy forum while mine is providing evidence to solve this crime and anonymous bloggers like Arabesque are meant to lurk in the shadows and spew lies and cause division.

If you don't agree with my approach and don't want me in your forum because of it that is certainly your choice but CIT is not out of line and I follow your rules.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:53 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We are NOT relying on "speculation" and that is the point.

Apparently you're so accustomed to confrontation that you're extending my comments into areas of unintended discourse. The original point remains and is somewhat proven out here, that a confrontational style will harm your credibility and attract those who would attack.

Have to go along with S.O. here.

My first impression upon reading this thread was not about the content, but instead wondering whether the OP had finished off too many espressos before signing on. I really have a hard time with those that scream at and/or name call anyone that they feel they can't brow beat into accepting their point of view. Your proof may never equal my proof on any given issue - so, deal with it. You present your info and you let it go. And so far, no one has convinced me that all these 9/11 conspiracies are not bogus. Principle of Occam's Razor is in play here, I think. Paraphrasing (loosely): the simplest solution to any given problem is the most likely one. And every 9/11 conspiracy I've ever read quickly turns very convoluted.

Anyway, my last impression from reading this thread is to put the OP on ignore so as to not accidentally stumble across any more of these tirades.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:53 PM

Not only were there highways immediately surrounding the Pentagon, there was the large I-395 highway just south of the Pentagon jam packed full of potential witnesses of a flyover. Russell Pickering confirms that “I have witnesses with footage of the area behind the Pentagon at the moment of impact that I have talked to in great detail. They had three cameras running. They SWEAR that nothing flew over the building. So who is right? The video shows that if your imaginary flyover happened the plane would have had to go significantly south. There were multiple people there watching. NOTHING flew over according to them.”

As you might expect from an anonymous blogger he is making uninformed incorrect claims from behind his computer with ZERO knowledge of the actual topography or what people can see from the highways.

Since Arabesque has never been to the area that he claims to "research" he has no way of knowing what people could really see from 395 or any of the surrounding highways or how much the fireball and smoke would block their view or cause a diversion.

Of course all he really needed to do is view the location videos that we have published showing EXACTLY what the point of view for people on the highways really is.

The fact is that this 2 second event was over before most people had a clue what had happened and with the incredible frequency of low flying planes making quick ascents over the Pentagon while departing out of Reagan there is no reason to suggest that a jet flying away over the Potomac would be a cause for alarm in any way.

Even if it was directly after the explosion.

Attention would be on the explosion, fireball, and the smoke plume which would block the view for those "potential witnesses" south of the Pentagon on 395.

Russell Pickering is far from an unbiased researcher as he has refused to update his website for over a year since our trip and dedicated 100% of his efforts towards discrediting CIT personally similar to what Arabesque has done.

His unsupported CLAIM that somebody took video footage is merely that and certainly NOT evidence.

I could easily CLAIM that we have spoken to a witness who has video footage of the flyover but that would not be evidence.

Pickering has never seen the footage he speaks of either so to suggest this is valid evidence that counters a flyover is a 100% false statement.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211
And so far, no one has convinced me that all these 9/11 conspiracies are not bogus.

Then put your fingers in your ears and ignore away.

We are not trying to convince you of any theories.

We provide proof of a military deception with hard evidence.

If you are unwilling to examine and analyze the evidence you have no place commenting or throwing around references to "occams razor" anyway.

This thread is nothing but a direct response to a very convoluted and deceptive public personal attack hit-piece and is not meant to be a coherent presentation of the evidence.

I appreciate your efforts to ignore it.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:16 PM

Putting aside this implausible scenario, how then to explain the knocked down light poles? When asked if he believed explosives were used to take them out Ranke replied incredulously, “We have never claimed explosives were used to bring down the light poles. That is ludicrous.” What was CIT’s “non-ludicrous” explanation?

“I would almost say that you are slightly mentally challenged or you are a dishonest operative trying to attribute words to us we've never said. WE NEVER SAID EXPLOSIVES WERE INVOLVED. Light poles were removed months in advance. A VDOT representative said "anything is possible" when it comes to them not being aware of a removal. No one would notice 5 light poles missing, that were removed in the middle of the night… 4 prefabbed light poles were laid out in the grass in inconspicuous areas in the night time/early am hours. You can't see the poles from the elevated highway. No one would be paying attention to light poles on the side of the road that they can't even see. Most people were looking straight ahead, on their cell phones, listening to their radio for news in NYC.”

For a complete presentation of our hypothesis on the planting of the light poles see here:
The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.

If Arabesque doesn't like this hypothesis he is free to come up with his own but not a single researcher, expert, pilot, engineer, or anyone at all will maintain that a 757 on the north side of the station can down the poles.

Arabesque is not refuting the north side evidence simply by attempting to cast doubt on our hypothesis of how the poles were planted.

He is simply making an argument from incredulity which is yet another logical fallacy.

Arabesque is quite fond of those.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:30 PM

The light pole damage is compelling for another reason as I stated in my original review of the PentaCon, “Even more significant is that the structural damage inside of the Pentagon aligns perfectly with the flight path as suggested by the light pole damage and generator… The filmmakers even acknowledge this point when they claim that the plane could not have caused the structural damage inside of the Pentagon if it approached from north of the CITGO gas station. This is very strong evidence that the PentaCon eyewitnesses are wrong. Not only is there physical evidence suggesting a plane hit the Pentagon, there is compelling eyewitness testimony corroborating what happened.”

Once again Arabesque is using circular logic to dismiss the evidence proving a deception on 9/11.

Does the fact that the WTC collapsed prove it was due to the impact of the planes?

Of course not. This is the exact same reasoning that Arabesque is using to dismiss the north side evidence.

It is not logical. It is not scientific. It is a logical fallacy.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:00 PM

But the “ludicrous” explanations did not end there. CIT insinuated on their website that the Pentagon trees by the highway about 500 feet away from the impact zone were part of some pre-planned “sleight of hand” illusion: “It's widely accepted by most Pentagon attack researchers that the witnesses who would have had the best view of the alleged impact would have been on route 27 right in front of the Pentagon. While this would certainly seem to be the case the reality is that not many of them would have had a very good view at all primarily due to a grouping of trees that blocks where the plane would have hit the building.”

Were these specially designated psy-op trees another part of the spectacularly complicated and convoluted “military deception” successfully carried out by the Pentagon attack planners? This claim is extremely dubious since as you can see in the photos for yourself; while these trees partially block a view of the Pentagon, they would not block any view of a potential Pentagon flyover. It is a stretch to say that these trees would even fully block the view of the plane if it hit the Pentagon. This is clearly one of the most disingenuous arguments promoted by the CIT investigators, bordering on deliberate disinformation.

Arabesque is reaching desperately here while once again misrepresenting our claims.

We NEVER said the trees would block the view of the flyover!

Our claim is that they block the view of the alleged IMPACT for most of the potential witnesses on route 27 and this is 100% fact.

Click here to see all images proving this.

We prove it with images as well as video footage. This is NOT "disinfo" or "disingenuous" it is proven fact.

The flyover was concealed by the fireball and subsequent smoke plume, not the trees.

Our point in bringing up the trees is to show you how some of the witness statements about the impact from people like Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman are in doubt because of their confirmed position right in front of the trees.

This has nothing to do with the flyover whatsoever.

The sound of the plane impact and resulting silence afterwards is noted by several witnesses. Firefighter Allan Wallace was mere feet away from the impact zone at the Pentagon and described “a flash and a horrific crunch.”

Alan Wallace says some other things that support our claims. His entire first-hand account is available here.

1. He is very explicit when he claims that he did NOT see the impact of the plane.

2. He specifically describes the plane as "white"!

His description of a "crunch" is a general sound could very well be from the explosives destroying the building but his description of the plane as "white" completely contradicts the official story and supports our hypothesis.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:31 PM

The incredibly convoluted and speculative flyover theory is not yet complete—it needs to explain the radar data. Considering the above, CIT’s predictable reaction was expected by Pentagon researcher John Farmer, “they really don’t like me now that we have the RADES radar data. Guess what? No ‘flyover plane’ shows up on radar. Oh yes, I forgot, the government doctored that too.”

Not even close.

We are ECSTATIC that they released the RADES data! This holds them to their word in regards to where all the planes flew and makes it even easier for us to prove a deception.

The RADES data is irreconcilable with where the C-130 flew as reported by the pilot himself as well as witnesses of the E4B.

No honest investigator into the 9/11 attack would accept government controlled and supplied data as valid evidence in support of the official story.

The RADES data was released this year and the NTSB data was released in 2006. How can ANYONE who claims that 9/11 was an inside job assume that this data is valid? ESPECIALLY in light of all the blatant contradictions that we will lay out in our next presentation.

The FDR data is another can of worms and even the speculative flyover CIT theorists admit on their website, “The complete witness flight path that we report does not match the flight path as indicated by the FDR and we have never cited the FDR as supporting evidence that the witnesses are correct… the FDR and witness flight paths do not match each other.” The FDR is a separate controversy to deal with since as Caustic Logic explains, “The NTSB ‘animation’… is in fact at least 20 degrees off from the Black Box data it's supposed to be based on.”

Who is Caustic Logic? He sure isn't an FDR specialist! Or a pilot or an authority on ANYTHING with any credentials whatsoever. He is a janitor. He is clearly not an authority on the FDR.

But Pilots for 9/11 truth are.

This video shows you the facts proving how the FDR is irreconcilable with the physical evidence.

Google Video Link

Is it a coincidence that Arabesque ignores the experts in favor of biased bloggers such as John Farmer and Caustic Logic?

I hardly think so.

On top of all of this, the video evidence at the Double Tree hotel clearly showing no flyover is described by Ranke as “data controlled and provided for solely by the suspect that is therefore automatically invalid.”

My statement is certainly correct but even Arabesque's own "FDR expert" Caustic Logic agrees with us that you would not be able to see the flyover in the government provided DoubleTree security video due to the trees.

Caustic Logic said...

I looked again, and that tree really does obstruct the view pretty fully - a flyover might be able to hide entirely back there.

That doesn't stop Arabesque from claiming it as PROOF there was no flyover!

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:46 PM
This is my first visit and probably my last. It is clear this area is only for those who completely agree and there is no room for questions without putting up with ridicule. If you have proof and this is not theory you should be happy to answer questions, explain your proof or answer people calmly without flaming every little question or remark. Not to mention it looks bad when you don't abide by the resident rules. I took the time to read another thread and the behavior is the same.

I'm purposefully not commenting on your proofs or the topic because your attitude took away any interest I may have had in that regard. When raw emotion takes over common sense can not occupy the same space and a persons judgment can no longer be trusted.

Why is this Black Eye being allowed on ATS? Do the rules end when I click on this Forum? Are personal attacks the New Norm?

Note to self:
Avoid "The Pentacon".

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:23 PM
Isn't that the crux of it? I mean, the point of the attacks is to degenerate the discussion into name calling and defensive responses in order to deflect attention away from the truth. You are dismissed as hostile if you respond in kind to it, and your argument is dismissed as debunked if you don't.

Site administration is complicit (sorry SO, you may think you are trying to help, but you're not), in that commentary is diverted into talking about how you talk about the conspiracy, instead of pursuing the salient points of the conspiracy itself. The whole thing starts to look like a dog chasing its tail.

This is the tactic that has been used effectively for the last six-plus years to stymie investigation into the events of 9/11. Its worked so far, why stop now?

Ever seen somebody who is in the right lose an argument because they become so upset at the underhanded tactics of the opposition they are unable to speak coherently, and just sit there mumbling and fuming? That is exactly what is happening here.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:35 PM
Note to members: The CIT forum has been disbanded and the related threads moved to the 9/11 Conspiracies forum... with this reminder.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:46 PM
Ever watch a sporting event where a penalty is called, and on the replay you can clearly see the player called for the penalty was reacting to a foul the referee didn't see?

Notice served and received. Once again decorum trumps justice.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:36 AM

Please review: NEW POLICY regarding U2Us (PRIVATE messages)

[edit on 28-11-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Isn't that the crux of it? I mean, the point of the attacks is to degenerate the discussion into name calling and defensive responses in order to deflect attention away from the truth. You are dismissed as hostile if you respond in kind to it, and your argument is dismissed as debunked if you don't.


You get it.

Smart guy.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:16 AM
Wow, I just see "Craig Ranke CIT" as being very passionate about his beliefs. I've seen much worse!!

To be sure, it is a real shame that the Penta Con forum has been disbanded because of this post and his exchange with the SO.

What the heck is going on here?

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Isn't that the crux of it? I mean, the point of the attacks is to degenerate the discussion into name calling and defensive responses in order to deflect attention away from the truth. You are dismissed as hostile if you respond in kind to it, and your argument is dismissed as debunked if you don't.

Site administration is complicit (sorry SO, you may think you are trying to help, but you're not), in that commentary is diverted into talking about how you talk about the conspiracy, instead of pursuing the salient points of the conspiracy itself. The whole thing starts to look like a dog chasing its tail.

This is the tactic that has been used effectively for the last six-plus years to stymie investigation into the events of 9/11. Its worked so far, why stop now?

Ever seen somebody who is in the right lose an argument because they become so upset at the underhanded tactics of the opposition they are unable to speak coherently, and just sit there mumbling and fuming? That is exactly what is happening here.

Exactly. How are you supposed to have a conversation with someone who yells in your face "TREASON" because you disagree? It's an attack. It's a form of assault.

I could choose to debunk every single argument that Craig says, or I can expose the fact that he uses "debating" tactics like these. Personal attacks are not debate. My identity is irrelevant. He'd attack me regardless of whether or not he knows my identity--isn't that obvious? Hell, his partner doesn't even believe Caustic Logic when he tells him his real name--he wants PROOF of his DNA or something. Well maybe, CIT are the ones who need to prove their credibility based on their behavior. Not me. Not Caustic Logic. He and his partner have even admitted "we're not here for debate". Well no kidding! I figured that out pretty quick.

It is impossible to have a debate when the other person is making personal insults and accusations at you in every single response. Why should anyone respond to such behavior?

Now, Mr. Ranke is making the SERIOUS accusation that a taxi cab driver is an "accomplice" in the 9/11 crime. Well that's LIBEL if you can't prove it, and I KNOW that he can't prove it. Sure, he'll pretend he can, but don't kid yourself. Now if you are supporting the work of CIT, think about the possibility that this borders on LIBEL. Not to mention the outrageous attacks he makes on Pentagon researchers.

So you're telling me that they decided to make the plane fly on the NORTH side of the CITGO, but then they decided to fake the damage on the SOUTH side? Now why would they do something that dumb if they decided they were going to stage the damage? Why stage it at all if they decided to fly the plane on the NORTH side? Explain that. And why pick Lloyd's car? And how could you time it so that his car lined up with the area of the light poles at the very same moment the plane flew by? Better yet, don't tell me. I don't want to know, because you'll probably come up with even more ridiculous scenarios than I've already heard .

Why fly the plane OVER the building, when flying it INTO the building would have the same effect, destroy the evidence, and make the hijackers look guilty?

The people in the Pentagon died regardless of whether or not a plane hit the building. Now if you understand THAT, then the real question should be: WHY was the Pentagon attacked at all when it is the most heavily defended structure in the world?

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Arabesque]

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:22 AM

The fact that we INVESTIGATED proves that we did NOT assume our beliefs and sought legitimate evidence and proof just like Arabesque has refused to do.

This is only the first paragraph but is a perfect example of the backwards reasoning and deceptive framing that goes on through the entire blog.

There is nothing wrong with admitting you assumed that a plane hit the Pentagon based on your previous research. I believe that you are mistaken, but perhaps the word I should have used is "began with the premise". I will change it.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Arabesque]

new topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in