Previously unknown Pentagon witness proves NTSB and 84 RADES data fraudulent

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Craig..when you start looking at ALL the evidence....maybe people will take yours seriously.

You ignore anything that does not fit your theory. That is not an investigation.

CO,

You may be interested to know that I joined Pilots for 9/11 Truth yesterday to raise the very question with members there that I have with Ranke here.

Remember, Craig Ranke has REFUSED to address my question in the year I have been asking him.

For my efforts, even raising the question caused pain and I was promptly suspended this morning.

Here is the "reason" I was suspended, according to Rob Balsamo.

"Those who blindly follow the govt story are asked to keep their discussions in the Debate section, we do not accept the conspiracy theory offered by the govt as evidence in other areas of the forum. This forum is mainly a research forum, not a debate forum."

(Elsewhere there is a firm warning for we skeptics that we will be tried for treason when the time comes.)

We already know that the testimony and statements from 1,000+ people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from the Pentagon is the Achilles heal for Craig Ranke's "investigation." Apparently, it scares Pilots even more.

So we can see how desperate this group of no-planers is and, as we already know, why Graig Ranke has to control the process to the length he does.

Try signing up and see what happens at Pilots.

reply to post by jthomas


Rob Balsmo was proven wrong on many things on his site. I have been banned twice from the LC forum for the same reasons...asking questions. Interesting huh? At least here you are allowed to state facts and sometimes have a good debate.

I stand by my previous post and agree with you that CIT and P4Truth need to look at all the evidence and not cherry pick things that fit theory.

Anyway..I suggest we stay on topic here or we will get pretty red flags under our names

pilots for truth. nice forum, nice people.

JREF, mean forum, mean people.

judge a tree by the fruit.

i laughed when you got laughed at, jthomas. the site is obviously not interested in debating whether there was a conspiracy. those of us who have been convinced by overwhelming evidence know there was a conspiracy. we are just tired of trying to convince those people who are pretending to be blind.

great work, again craig! you've got the usual suspects trying the bait and switch instead of trying to face te evidence presented.

you should have seen 'arthur' at physorg try and claim that sgt. legasse was wrong about what he saw because the knocked down light poles and the taxi prove the path of the airplane, even though he KNEW that 'we' say that evidence was pre-planted false evidence.
and it thought it proven beyond doubt that it would be physically impossible for legasse to see (any plane on the official path) through the gas station canopy from where he was standing.

and, even though it's been pointed out that most(if not all) of the witnesses who were shown in the media were either from USA today and affiliates or the military, that witness testimony gets thrown about as 'proof', too.

Originally posted by billybob


you should have seen 'arthur' at physorg try and claim that sgt. legasse was wrong about what he saw because the knocked down light poles and the taxi prove the path of the airplane, even though he KNEW that 'we' say that evidence was pre-planted false evidence.
and it thought it proven beyond doubt that it would be physically impossible for legasse to see (any plane on the official path) through the gas station canopy from where he was standing.

and, even though it's been pointed out that most(if not all) of the witnesses who were shown in the media were either from USA today and affiliates or the military, that witness testimony gets thrown about as 'proof', too.

Yeah that straw man argument about Lagasse comes from Arabesque and all the rest parrot it.

Lagasse says multiple times that he did NOT SEE the plane hit the poles or the cab and in fact we know that he would not have been able to see this from his location.

Of course he would assume that the physical damage that he did not witness lines up with the plane that he did witness.

To suggest his north side testimony is the least bit in doubt because of this EVEN THOUGH it is corroborated by all and refuted by none is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

We have hard evidence and facts, they have nothing but faulty logic.

The "debunkers" won't even TOUCH Steve Chaconas' account!


The east side claim is every bit as much of a smoking gun as the north side claim.

Originally posted by billybob
pilots for truth. nice forum, nice people.

JREF, mean forum, mean people.

You're at the wrong forum. This is ATS.

i laughed when you got laughed at, jthomas. the site is obviously not interested in debating whether there was a conspiracy.

Neither am I. I stick to evidence.

those of us who have been convinced by overwhelming evidence know there was a conspiracy. we are just tired of trying to convince those people who are pretending to be blind.

For those of us who you claim are "blind", isn't interesting how Craig Ranke and you all at Pilots get extremely paranoid when you are asked to deal with ALL of the evidence?

Quite amazing for those of you claiming you have the "truth."

What we know is quite clear, billybob, and you can bring this back to Pilots, if you have the courage.

We KNOW that all of you are completely unable to to deal with all of the evidence that shows conclusively that AA77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

And we know that the evidence scares all of you to death, that NONE of you have the courage, honesty, or integrity, to discuss and/or refute the evidence against you.

You and your "Pilots" fool no one, as Graig Ranke and Roy Balsamo know.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Lagasse says multiple times that he did NOT SEE the plane hit the poles or the cab and in fact we know that he would not have been able to see this from his location.

No... but he does state that he sees the the plane HIT the pentagon. He states that he saw plane debris very soon after he witnessed this. How could the perps have planted this evidence so fast?

Why are you ignoring the two most damning parts of his interview?

OH ok... he was right about what side he recalled the plane coming over the Citgo station...but he was dupped into believing that he saw the plane hit the pentagon.

he says he saw it hit.
but the citgo employee made it clear that there was a bank of dirt obscuring the view of the actual impact point.
if he saw it flying in the right direction, and then saw a huge explosion, he would not necessarily have to see it actually impact the building to make the assumption that the low flying plane had hit the building.
i'm not a firm believer in the flyover theory, but i am a firm believer in the taxi evidence and the lamp posts being totally fabricated. it's pretty much been proven that lloyd's testimony doesn't add up to anything remotely possible.

the plane flew over, knocking a pole onto his taxi, and then a guy who was driving by in a gman looking vehicle pulls over and helps him move the pole off the car, and then they turn to watch the impact. they must have been in an area of very high gravity where time slowed down to black hole horizon time. it takes about .5 seconds for the plane to get from the road to the building at 500mph.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by billybob]

reply to post by billybob



So he says he saw it hit... someone says he didn't? So.. are you calling him a liar?

Again... what do we beleive?

He didnt see it fly over either did he?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


No... but he does state that he sees the the plane HIT the pentagon. He states that he saw plane debris very soon after he witnessed this. How could the perps have planted this evidence so fast?

The north side claim and impact claim can NOT be simultaneously true. The north side claim proves a deliberate deception. The impact claim does not. It makes no sense to suggest that the witnesses were all unanimously drastically mistaken in the exact same way about the placement of the plane as it went by the property they were standing on.

It makes perfect sense to suggest that they were all successfully deceived as intended by a very capable and complex military psyop.

Particularly in light of the incredible amount of OTHER evidence we have proving the official story false such as the east side evidence that this thread is SUPPOSED to be about but you have ignored.

OH ok... he was right about what side he recalled the plane coming over the Citgo station...but he was dupped into believing that he saw the plane hit the pentagon.

Yep. That is the infinitely more logical conclusion since they were all much closer to the plane as it passed by the station compared to when it reached the building.




Now....care to comment on the evidence provided in the OP that further demonstrates a military deception on 9/11?

You ignore anything that does not fit your theory. That is not an investigation.

DNA evidence

if you show me one forensic pathologist who will claim that it is even remotely possible to have an explosion that destroys an entire jetliner but still contain enough dna to identify every passenger i will concede forever that 911 was no conspiracy and delete my account here.

reply to post by jprophet420


Jprophet.... seriously? Thats a bold statement.

I will do my best

reply to post by jprophet420


Jprophet420....

Please see this thread I started here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hope you enjoy it.



I'll notify the NWO that you will be working with me. (it pays great!)

reply to post by CaptainObvious


no.
i didn't call him a liar. he seems quite genuine, and 100% sure about what he saw.

are you calling him a liar?

reply to post by billybob


No BB I wasn't calling him anything. Craig said 1/2 of his statement could not have been accurate.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Nice layout, Craig!

Steve Chaconas' testimony is compelling.

And good job, responding to everyone! Star.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


being inaccurate and being a liar are two different things. why do you want to put the word "liar" into my mouth regarding legasse?
i think craig is doing a great service to mankind, and he is a personal hero of mine.

i think both cops were honest.

and i agree with craig that they could be partially wrong, although i'd personally go with a smaller percentage.

the citgo employee said there was a dirt embankment, since reduced, that obscured the view of the pentagon on 9/11. if the officers saw the plane flying low and towards the building, they would assume that a perfectly timed explosive fireball was the result of impact, and would remember it as such.

i can't IGNORE the FACT that multiple previously unknown witnesses all picked the exact same flight path, and that flight path goes nowhere remotely near the lamp posts or lloyd's taxi.

it must be nice to be able to ignore evidence you don't like.
i personally can't.

like, for example, the FACT that most of the published witness accounts of the pentagon incident seem to be from people whom are either in the military, or work for USA today.
or the FACT that the alleged plane had an inordinate number of people from raytheon and the military on board.

fakery was rampant on 911. "yay!" for high tech recording devices and logic!
speaking of which, how about a definitive video from one of the 80+ cameras that were survielling the scene?

nothing but smoke.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The north side claim and impact claim can NOT be simultaneously true. The north side claim proves a deliberate deception. The impact claim does not.

There is no "impact claim."

The impact of AA77 into the Pentagon is known and proven.

Originally posted by billybob


being inaccurate and being a liar are two different things. why do you want to put the word "liar" into my mouth regarding legasse?
i think craig is doing a great service to mankind, and he is a personal hero of mine.

i think both cops were honest.

and i agree with craig that they could be partially wrong, although i'd personally go with a smaller percentage.

I didn't call him a liar. But this man is mistaken on 1/2 of his statement. Per your "HERO" he is right about the side of the gas station he saw the plane on....but is wriong on seeing the airplane hit the pentagon.

Personally, I would becareful on who you place HERO labels on.

Originally posted by billybob
the citgo employee said there was a dirt embankment, since reduced, that obscured the view of the pentagon on 9/11. if the officers saw the plane flying low and towards the building, they would assume that a perfectly timed explosive fireball was the result of impact, and would remember it as such.

The officer stated he saw the impact As did other witnesses. You may not want to ignore some eyewitness statements 5-6 years after the fact...thats your perogative. What you can not ignore is physical evidence that does not ever change.

This is the problem with CIT. They choose what they want that only fits their theory.

Again.. how many people saw flight 77 flyover the Pentagon?





[edit on 17-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

i explained already, as it is explained in the video of the interview with the witnesses.
it would be physically impossible for legasse to see the plane if it was on the official flight path.
so, yes, i believe that testimony that the plane was NOT on the official flight path, as both officers drew the nearly identical path on the maps provided.

and, as i said, the dirt embankment(as described by the CITGO employee) likely obscured the view of the point of impact, so, if the officer saw the plane fly very low and fast towards the building, and then the explosion happened just as the plane arrived, he would remember it as a cause and effect, even though he couldn't actually see the point of impact.

maybe he would be willing to clarify that point. i'm not as diligent as craig, though, so i'm not going to bother ferreting out witnesses, getting a camera, setting up a meeting, being prepared with maps and facts, and then publishing all the results with my name on it, for free, all over the net.....

yes, craig is a personal hero of mine, and i AM careful who i say that about.

reply to post by jthomas


pure rhetoric, dude.

it is not known and proven or there would be no discussion, and there's A LOT of discussion.

you sound like the non-scientists from popular mechanics. all like, 'just accept the facts, ...the facts are what we tell you are facts, and all other facts must be ignored if they disagree with our facts'.