Dubious Pentagon attack witness Rick Renzi indicted

Originally posted by kleverone


That fact that there is actually a list with the 20 MOST CORRUPT people in congress demonstrates where this country is heading.


[edit on 24-2-2008 by kleverone]

This fact went right over my head, as I read the post. Now that I think about it, this is sort of crazy, that there IS a list like that.

But you know how America is.

I mean, sheesh, I'm logging onto ESPN.com right to vote for the "World's Greatest Sports Highlight Ever" , as we speak. You should see the HEATED arguments in there, about why this play wasn't even nominated or there's too much Baseball, it's a racist vote, ect, ect.

We love to categorize, and rank stuff.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


So a guy who testified to a plane hitting the building was indicted for unrelated crimes over six tears later. Hmmm… yes, the impact story is falling apart, since it *allegedly* happened where lots of politicians – who we don’t and shouldn’t trust – would see it.

Uh-huh.

Nothing fishy to see here folks.

Not like there is any other evidence contradicting the impact claim.

People with high connections in Washington who happened to be hanging out at the scene in a plain white T-shirt and who over-dramatically recite an impossible account should be expected!

I guess since he didn't "win" his seat on congress until a year later this "law student" must have simply taken a wrong turn on his way to "class" in that white T-shirt even though he graduated in 1980 from Northern Arizona University.

Luckily he was still in town a month later so he could be interviewed for that neocon agenda supporting propaganda piece.

Maybe he was simply on vacation in DC from school at the time.

Students go on vacation for the entire month of September sometimes. Right??

Now for those pesky fine officers and immigrant citizens who said the same thing… Oh yeah they was just tricked.

Say the same thing???

Do you have any shame?

Talk about spin.

The citgo witnesses do NOT "say the same thing" as Rick Renzi in the least.

They say the same thing as each other which is that the plane was on the north side of the citgo proving a military deception and proving that shady individuals like Rick Renzi, PNAC document signer Gary Bauer, and Jeff Gannon's former boss Bobby Eberle were utilized for a reason.

They destroy the official narrative while Rick Renzi in all of his animated/exaggerated glory still supports it.

No doubt Renzi was simply a bit too enthusiastic while being under briefed.

Originally posted by Nola213


Craig , BTW- I know there's still almost a week left in the month but any ETA on the new video? Much appreciated

It's done.

I've just been struggling for the past week getting a decent compressed version to upload.

Any day now.

It should be noted that Renzi sat on the House intelligence committee, which oversees the spooks.

His dubious and mysterious background indicates he may be a spook himself.

His dad who died this month was defense contractor bigwig.

cannonfire.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Good post Craig Ranke CIT. strrd and flggd.
He said, like a suicide bomber, no a plane, the plane game streaking down on a dive bombing angle.

We knew it was a deliberate act, we new it was a terrorist act.
How on Earth good he new that on that moment?

We want Bin Laden, we want the people of Afghanistan to rice up, we are ready to explore freedom again now.

We [not himself of course] are ready to fight.

In my opinion he is lying through his teeth, and he is a terrible liar also.


[edit on 24/2/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 24/2/08 by spacevisitor]

The "Truth Movement" has nothing to do with truth, or 9-11.

As evidenced by the tone of your post and the rhetoric used; 9-11 is the rally cry disparate, far left political groups use to coalesce. 9-11 is a tool that binds politically active groups together around a common cause.

You're post really has nothing to do with truth, or 9-11. It's a political post that uses 9-11 as it's wrapper. The fact that this guy has run amok of the law is proof of nothing other than he has run amok of the law. To people like the OP, and the "Truth Movement" at large, it's all one in the same.

Here is the post's logic flow:
He's a republican (or a 'neocon', which is political jargon used by far left activists), therefore he's part of "them", which means he is somehow involved in the "coverup", he likes to talk with Mrs. Harris, who is responsible for "stealing" the election from "us" and he's now in trouble with the law so that means 9-11 was an inside job. Following this logic, because Representative Jefferson was caught taking bribes and was found to have $90,000 in his freezer is proof 9-11 wasn’t an inside job.

And that is the "Truth Movement" in a nutshell.


EDIT:
This post is a pretty good example of the state of the "Truth Movement". This is held up as serious evidence of......something.

Come to think of it, this combined with remote controlled planes, unknown holographic technology, thermite 'cutter charges', Doppler sound effects, mini nuclear weapons, remote controlled airliners, the 75th revision of "Loose Change", soul collectors on the moon and my personal favorite: explosive 'pods' on cargo planes spray painted to look like commercial airliners PROVES beyond a doubt 9-11 was an inside job.

Can't wait to see what this week brings. What new permutations might be invented? What 'new' evidence will be fabricated....I mean created......I mean discovered that will finally prove the NWO is responsible for the Neocons take over of the world!


[edit on 24-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by spacevisitor



Following your logic, anything he says or does, or doesn't say or doesn't do that supports your theory should also be discounted.

You can't have it both ways. If he's unreliable, in your opinion, than any conclusion involving him must be rejected.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


There are a lot of accusations in your post without a single quote.

Instead you chose to paraphrase my statements out of context and completely misrepresent my claims.

I said nothing in the post that isn't factual and everything is backed up with quotes, sources, and even video for crying out loud.

The notion of "exporting freedom" that Renzi was sharp enough to go off on a mere month after 9/11 most certainly IS the stated neocon agenda.

Neoconservative isn't an attack term created by "liberals". It is a political philosophy that has been forced on the world with the Bush regime as the primary vehicle.

Frankly I personally see the Clintons as neocons also since Bill basically followed suit between both Bushs.

Now see if you can back up any of your accusations against me with specific examples and quotes.

I am willing to bet that you can't.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


I remember the dive bomb version of the attack at the Pentagon was the official story for quite some time, my father explained it to me months after the attack.

It was used to explain the amount of major damage being limited to the first 3 rings, most of the kinetic energy was absorbed by the ground was the logic if I remember it correctly.

It seems this guy played his starring role of "witness" right into a place in congress. Does this make his eyewitness testimony automatically part of some evil conspiracy, no.

It is interesting how the MSM works with certain messages about the attacks, mostly the most sensational ones, but when the 911 Commission contradicts these "eyewitness" accounts, there's no follow up investigative to determine if what they reported was inaccurate.

Once again, I know in my heart of hearts that the government is lying about 9/11. At the same time, however, this bad logic at the heart of this thread damages the credibility of those of us who know the official version of events is incorrect. In summary: "Rick Renzi lied about something that had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore he must have lied about what he saw on 9/11".

"WHAT!?!?"

[edit on 24-2-2008 by chromatico]

Originally posted by chromatico
"Rick Renzi lied about something that had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore he must have lied about what he saw on 9/11".

"WHAT!?!?"

Who are you quoting?

Certainly not me.

I challenge you to find one statement I made in the OP that is not backed up by fact.

Do it.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I'm not quoting you, it's the gist of the argument. If the main argument of the pro-CIT posters on this thread is something essentially different than "Renzi's lying now (about non-9/11 matters) demonstrates he lied earlier about 9/11", I'd like to see how it's different. I'm willing to make a retraction if I am mistaken, but the core argument seems to be what I've quoted.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Following your logic, anything he says or does, or doesn't say or doesn't do that supports your theory should also be discounted.

You can't have it both ways. If he's unreliable, in your opinion, than any conclusion involving him must be rejected.

It is no logic, but pure common sense.
Because when you look to the below video Craig Ranke provide, and see how Rick Renzi shows with the movement of his arm and hand how the plane came down like a dive bomber in an angle like that, it definitely was crashed in the Pentagons lawn.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

And when you look to the below Pentagon camera footage Craig Ranke provide you see “clearly” “something” that flying horizontal into the building, and absolute not in the dive bomber angle as Renzi said.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

[edit on 24/2/08 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

I'm not quoting you, it's the gist of the argument. If the main argument of the pro-CIT posters on this thread is something essentially different than "Renzi's lying now (about non-9/11 matters) demonstrates he lied earlier about 9/11", I'd like to see how it's different. I'm willing to make a retraction if I am mistaken, but the core argument seems to be what I've quoted.

You are simply taking claims out of context in order to create a false dilemma to present me.

We have plenty of evidence already proving there was a military deception and the Rick Renzi story has no bearing on it.

The facts presented in this thread simply show easy it is to find questionable and suspicious individuals who were on the scene and touted by the media as a regular "witnesses" to the event.

They reported him as a "LAW STUDENT"!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


The media made a mistake...so what? Renzi told a lie that had nothing to do with 9/11...so what? Until anyone can demonstrate what relevance these facts (and, yes, I admit they are facts) have to 9/11, this thread does not have a point.

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

The media made a mistake...so what? Renzi told a lie that had nothing to do with 9/11...so what? Until anyone can demonstrate what relevance these facts (and, yes, I admit they are facts) have to 9/11, this thread does not have a point.

I guess you forgot about the part that his account can not be true!



This is quite relevant to 9/11.

You can keep making excuses for all of the anomalies but that doesn't change the fact that there are all of these anomalies and that we have evidence proving the official narrative false that does not rely on Renzi's false eyewitness account.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


So now you're changing the subject on your own thread. No longer are Renzi's current lies and corruption the focal point, but now is what you allege to be the logical impossibilities of what Mr. Renzi said he saw. I could debate you about whether or not the forensic evidence makes Renzi's testimony impossible, nevetheless that would be a gross deviation from what this thread was originally about and I feel no need to debate what has been debunked over and over again.

reply to post by chromatico


Perhaps you didn't read the OP but it's all in there.

This thread would be about the OP would it not?

I'm not even sure why you two are arguing. It's been 6 posts too many too read.
The OP is meant to bring a brighter light on this character and it's a thread well laid out.

The current situation is proof of the correct adjectivebeing used in the title. Dubious..

People keep saying " I think the government is involved" yet when this guy's history is shown I can't see how those people keep saying "show me proof" I'm not saying take any ole proof you need, but with the data floating around, this guys is bad apples and has been since day one. Everything he's said and done fits. Fits too good in a very bad way.

It's here. It's in your face.

That's right.. chew it.. chew it a bit more.. now swallow.

aahh.. the taste of truth.

Now if we could only sit everyone down to a hugs buffet of it all at once.

b

reply to post by Bspiracy


Two main fallacies implicit in your post:

1. You're not really pro-truth if you believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

2. Renzi lying about something that has nothing to do with 9/11 means he lied about what he saw on 9/11.