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.

 

Challenge to 757 impact at the Pentagon supporters...

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
By now it should be clear that CIT has provided a large body of corroborated independent verifiable evidence proving the official Pentagon story false.

We have done this on multiple fronts most notably in regards to the fact that we have demonstrated how the plane came from east of the river and flew north of the former CITGO station.

Each of these claims prove a military deception on 9/11 for two completely separate reasons that are not dependent on each other.

My challenge for official story supporters is to provide independent verifiable evidence SPECIFICALLY that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

I suggest that they can provide none whatsoever.

Evidence controlled and provided for solely by the government is not independent.

Anyone who accepts the challenge and fails to provide the evidence requested must concede that I am correct or admit that they have chosen to reject scientific reasoning and evidence in favor of nothing but pure unadulterated faith in the government.


Good luck!




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Interesting. JRef presents pretty damning mathematical proof that your alleged flight path is impossible by even fighter jets, challenges you to prove otherwise, and even offers to redo the entire calculations with your supplied variables... and then you shift the burden of proof?

I can't say that I'm surprised.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by m0ridin
 


Huh?

No they haven't.

They have provided faulty values based on pure speculation.

Speculation can not be proof and does not refute hard evidence.

Of course there is already a thread for that discussion.

So are you accepting the challenge in this thread or are you trolling which is against the rules?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
So the plane didn't impact the Pentagon. Please explain what happened.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Something else hit it instead. The fact that it can be proved that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon simply means that there is another layer to the story. Its possible that the government had a valid reason for telling everyone it was a 757. The only way to know for sure is to conclusively prove that the official story is a sham.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Scalamander
 


Actually there is no evidence that ANYTHING hit it.

And since we have evidence proving the plane did not we believe the destruction was caused with pre-planted explosives just like at the WTC.

Watch how this thread stays virtually inactive as NONE of the official story supporters accept this simple challenge that you would think they would demand themselves if they were true skeptics.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
So if the plane did not hit the building, what happened?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Craig,

This seems like an impossible challenge to me. Not because the case for a military deception is proven, but because there is a distinct lack of truly independent evidence anyway.

What sources would you accept as independent, for example? Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but I can't think of any.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
Craig,

This seems like an impossible challenge to me. Not because the case for a military deception is proven, but because there is a distinct lack of truly independent evidence anyway.

What sources would you accept as independent, for example? Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but I can't think of any.



That's the whole point. Since anyone who does investigate can ONLY be don't through some kind of government connection, he can pretend it doesn't count. It's a cute little game, but a primary reason why people like Craig aren't taken seriously outside of the conspiracy community. Sure it may sound nice on a conspiracy chat forum, but watch him make that argument in a court of law or to a legitimate media. he would then have to prove his claims that those sources are planting evidence or the 100s of other unavoidable implications. It's simply a deceptive debate tactic on his part. Just like he won't be able to address any theories that are the unavoidable result of his accusations because doing so will expose him as a fraud.

it's kind of like card tricks. It may fool those who aren't familiar to them, but very unimpressive to experts. Again, hence their claims not being taken seriously.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


Ahhhh!

Ok well there you go.

If you think it's impossible then you must admit that people merely accept the notion of a 757 impact out of nothing but pure faith.

The fact is that we HAVE provided multiple lines of independent verifiable corroborated evidence proving a military deception.

This thread demonstrates how true skeptics who actually adhere to scientific reasoning can not honestly dismiss the evidence that we present since they have none to counter it.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 


So now scientific reasoning is a card trick?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Please see my thread on the jet engine sim, it will explain how the engines would have reacted and if they could done what the official story states.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Craig,

I admire a lot of what you and the guys at CIT do, but this is poor mate.

You cannot issue a challenge knowing it's impossible, then claim victory when no one takes it on.

I'll ask again: what sources would you accept as independent?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."

www.moaa.org...

Craig, have you contacted Mr. Probst yet to verify his story?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.' "


www.usatoday.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.
www.rense.com...

I wonder if Craig has contacted him yet.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Craig,

I admire a lot of what you and the guys at CIT do, but this is poor mate.

You cannot issue a challenge knowing it's impossible, then claim victory when no one takes it on.

I'll ask again: what sources would you accept as independent?




What's "poor" about demanding scientific reasoning and evidence?

Consider this thread a demonstration showing how you must abandon scientific reasoning to accept the official story.

I'm simply tired of people claiming to be critical thinkers or "skeptics" acting like the official story has been proven when this is simply not true.

I am not citing this thread as proof of anything or using it to "claim victory" so your accusation is hollow and incorrect.

The purpose of this thread is merely to make it painfully clear that you must have pure faith in the government to accept the official story and that dismissing the evidence we present based on this faith is not logical or scientific.

Mate.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.



Have you verified this?

We tried and have proven it to be a false claim.

Furthermore this is not evidence, it is hearsay.

Eyewitness testimony is only evidence if it is first hand and what you have provided is not.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Your "evidence" is a quote from Rense.com!


Sorry but none of those quotes are first hand testimony or prove a 757 hit the building.

Even if the quotes are valid they simply show that someone saw a body and what they BELIEVED to be an airplane seat in the building.

None it is direct evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join