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.

 

New full feature presentation from CIT now realeased!

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut

Yes the 2001 interviews make your story false.


No they do not.

They NEVER contradict the north side claim in the least in fact Brooks further supports it when he claims the plane came on his "left" since we know that he would have backed into his parking space as cops always do.

Plus the FLIGHT TRACK you present is impossible to do. I told you. Everything you post the flight track it is impossible to do. Physics proves you wrong over and over again as you post a flight path impossible.

Wrong.
You have no idea of the speed OR the type of military modified plane this was.
There is nothing "impossible" about the flight path.

Now....care to comment on the new evidence?

What do you think of Steve Chaconas' testimony?
Tell us the vehicle, tell us the speed. But witnesses prove you wrong, and until you prove all the evidence wrong, you are stuck with a fantasy.

No decoy plane! Sorry, you have no witnesses for the flyover. But Steve saw the C-130, good job.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Have you seen this evidence? If not then what are you talking about? All CIT has to do is shoot one or two signicant holes in the government's story, to make it obvious that a real investigation of 9/11 is necessary.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Tell us the vehicle, tell us the speed.


Nobody can know these values that's why you can NOT conclude that the estimated flight path is "impossible".



No decoy plane! Sorry, you have no witnesses for the flyover. But Steve saw the C-130, good job.


Chaconas could not have seen the C-130.

Know why?

Chaconas describes seeing the plane BANK around to what he thought was the airport.


There is no possible way he could have seen ANY bank AT ALL in the C-130 flight path from the RADES data.



Plus the flight path Chaconas describes is irreconcilable with where the C-130 pilot himself says he flew:

He says he flew "NORTH" and "WEST" from Andrews to the south side of The Mall, not Reagan airport:


So in order to suggest that Steve Chaconas saw the C-130 you have to admit that the C-130 pilot himself lied about where he flew and also admit that the RADES data shows something completely different from what Chaconas saw.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Plus Chaconas specifically says that he saw a "commercial jet".

Clearly he knows the difference.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I dont have much time to expose all of the obvious strawmans made by Beachy, but i'll expose two here really quick....


Originally posted by beachnut
For your fantasy to work you need to prove the FDR was altered (group 4 of secret people who made up all 24 hours of FDR data that looks just like 77 for days before 9/11; all the flight are on the FDR for 24 hours! They match exactly what 77 did!)


You have the full decode of the raw file? Great, please post a link for download. As far as i know, you claim to be an "FDR Expert", have worked for the US Govt, and you couldnt even decode the raw file, we did. And we didnt get 24 hours of decode Mr Strawman. Please show us that "24 hours of data that looks just like 77 for days before 9/11". Its rhetorical of course, because we know you cant provide such decoded data to back up your claims. You are caught in more lies.


For your fantasy to work you need to prove the FDR was planted in the Pentagon (group 5 of secret people who planted the FDR)


Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location of FDR

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's - Location of FDR Part II


Beachy, you been repeating the same strawman's for months now. Time to come up with something better as perhaps some "critical thinkers" may think you arent too critical. Try not to remove your post content again in order to "save space"... its quoted.


Regards,
Rob

typo




[edit on 26-2-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Johndoex, you are the man!


But anyway, 1000s of witnesses mean nothing. If witnesses mean reality then bigfoot, the loch ness monster, the jersey devil must be real. I mean, thousands of people saw David Blaine levitate or turn up signed cards in people's socks and whatnot. Does that mean he can actually levitate or magically make cards appear?



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Watching it now, I'm sure it will be as stellar as your previous work over there at CIT.

Thanks for putting the time and effort into bringing this information to people.


Ouch not available right now says google. Maybe it's just getting slammed right now I dunno., and thier servers are bogged down. I'll give it a shot this evening.

I have been waiting a while to see this, since CIT and Craig are just about the only people who actually are out there interviewing people.

Well, to try and keep this thread in tact, I'd like to ask Beachnut how many people has he interviewed and recorded? It's impossible for Craig to talk to hundreds of witnesses.

Also he has done interviews with people (the priest comes to mind) who support the official story, and let me just say, they don't come across as being very credible. I mean he drove past the Pentagon everyday, but didn't realize that's where he was that day, come on.

He also interviewed the cab driver who was an official story witness. Did you find him, or the pristine condition of his car (all but a hole in his winshield) to be believable? I sure didn't.

So either your not very bright, or your just pulling stuff out of your, well, off the top of your head. So enough with the 1,000 eyewitnesses thing. Don't pull numbers out of thin air it makes you look ignorant.

The policemen and other northside witnesses come across to me as being far more credible, then these shady "official" witnesses. Oh wait, wasn't one just hauled off to jail on extortion charges. The priest contradicted himself quite a few times, as did the Cab driver, who actually seemed, like a patzi witness, he wasn't all there if you get what i mean. But you wouldn't know this cause you claim craig hasn't interviewed any witnesses who's testimony (tries) to support the official story.

That and the fact that the official flight data released by the NTSB is full of problems and doesn't fit with the "official" story either.

Is it too hard for you to keep an open mind and not believe everything the MSM tells you. Where are your videos Beach? Have you spoke to these 1,000 witnesses to the official story? with no financial backing? Are you sure it wasn't 750? Do you know how many probably ducked for cover and didnt see anything? I mean a boeing 767 flying that low is wuite loud and after hearing what already happened in NY, I'm sure some of these 750, or 100, or 1200, or whatever number of witnesses just dove for cover, when they heard the plane, and only got up to see the aftermath of the explosion.

Take a break already, Craig is doing solid reporting and leaving it up to the viewer to decide. Maybe when you watch his stuff it makes you think whoa, maybe....., and you don't like that feeling? Heck if I know, but why your trying to derail his thread by asking this rediculous question over, and over, and over again, leads me to believe you have motives.

Really, either start your own thread, and present your facts of a plane crashing into a pentagon, or zip it. We've heard your Strawman, made-up numbers point 3 times already, quit copy and pasting it throughout the thread.





[edit on 26-2-2008 by Nola213]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by italkyoulisten
 


Goodness Gracious

I pop back into these forums every couple months or so - and funnily enough - it always looks exactly the same!!! Seriously - does anyone here think they are getting anywhere? Becuase its quite obvious no-one is.

This one post made me laugh out loud - you saying that 1000's of witnesses are meaningless. Try telling that to your hero Craig here. He's convinced himself that it takes 5 witnesses to prove something completely - or some such craziness. If you want I can dig back and find the correct quote. Craigs entire arguement is basedon his "witnesses". So if you want to remain in his good graces - I think you change your last post...


Good job to jthomas and the pilot for rippping this little video to schreds.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Criag - its just these sort of comments that show your unabashed witness bias! Just because someone you like says something - you take it as gospel. "He obviously knows the difference" ---- give me a break man!

Yet when someone else - like your own witnesses saying they saw the plane crash in the pentagon - says something else that doesn't fit your imagination - you try and try and try to belittle them and dismiss what they have to say as either lies, or confusion or whatnot.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by megaman1234
 



He has never made any claims like that. Sorry if that's the feeling you come away with yourself after watching the interviews with the "official" story suppourting witnesses.

But I don't see Craig belittleing them at all, he does solid reporting, and let's the facts speak for themselves.

Sorry if you don't like them.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Wow, look at that. Giving it out for free. You know you can't do that Craig. What will the "debunkers" have to debunk now that it's free?

Edit: That was sarcasm.

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Nothing. As we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.


So much for your last 2 days worth of ranting and raving about burden of proof huh?

Oh, I get it now, it only pertains to the "truthers" and NOT the government?



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


Sorry Nola - check this quote by Mr Craig:

One first-hand eyewitness account is evidence.

2 independently corroborated first-hand accounts become strong evidence.

3 independently corroborated first-hand accounts become proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have presented 4 and we have obtained 2 mores since then for a total of 6.

All of this proving the plane was on the north side without a single direct refutation from another witness.

It's more than evidence. It is proof.


from this page here

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Craig loooooves witness testimony. Well - at least the witness testimony that he happens to agree with. All other witness testimony is fictional. Oh - and "independently corroborated" means "Craig thinks they are right so they are".



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Oh and Craig - does your witness know for sure it was a commercial jetliner or not? A few posts up - you make the point that we have no way of knowing what kind of modified military jet it is. But then 10 posts later you say that this guy knows "for sure" that it was a commercial airliner.

So does he or doesn't he?

If he doesn't - then that hurts not only his credibility but your as well - correct?



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Nothing. As we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.


So much for your last 2 days worth of ranting and raving about burden of proof huh?

Oh, I get it now, it only pertains to the "truthers" and NOT the government?


It no longer surprises me when Truthers claim the physical evidence of the wreckage recovered from the Pentagon means absolutely nothing. They need a video to "prove" AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

If 9/11 Truthers were around when the Titanic sank, they would have claimed the Titanic was sunk by a US submarine torpedo, that NO ship could be sunk by an iceberg, that all the survivors were forced to lie about the sinking, and the victims who died of hypothermia and drowning were actually shot because they wouldn't lie.

And, oh yes, of course, Titanic Twoofers would need a video to prove the Titanic was sunk by hitting an iceberg.

You guys are quite an amazing bunch, Griff.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Oh and Craig - does your witness know for sure it was a commercial jetliner or not? A few posts up - you make the point that we have no way of knowing what kind of modified military jet it is. But then 10 posts later you say that this guy knows "for sure" that it was a commercial airliner.

So does he or doesn't he?

If he doesn't - then that hurts not only his credibility but your as well - correct?




It was clearly a JET and not a PLANE as we have talked to dozens of witnesses who ALL said it looked like it was a twin engine passenger jet.

Exactly how this decoy JET was modified and exactly what type of JET it was we will never know.

But we most certainly do know that it was not a C-130.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Craig,

Why are you avoiding the evidence at the Pentagon?



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I don't care what anybody says about you jthomas.

You do a FABULOUS job of keeping the threads bumped and representing the "debunkers" as illogical and indignant.

Keep up the good work!




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join