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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Stop spamming.

Absolutely NOTHING you have posted is independent verifiable evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

None of it.

Do you even know what independent verifiable evidence is?




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   


Do you even know what independent verifiable evidence is?


Is it getting 6 people to say what you want so you can videotape it?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 

Absolutely NOTHING you have posted is independent verifiable evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
None of it.

Do you even know what independent verifiable evidence is?

He posted the same thing you use, witness statements. He used logic to show a 757 hit the Pentagon. You take witness statement and make up what you think they said and call it verifiable because you say it is true. That is not scientific, it is fiction. He takes witness statements and uses logic to verify a 757, that was found in the Pentagon.

You could just cheat and use the DNA from the passengers; which I will now use as proof the 757 that hit was 77 and the DNA proves this.

Until you show this is false, with evidence, we will stick with the DNA as enough proof alone that 77 was the one and only 757 that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Case is closed until you and the Washington Post, or anybody proves the DNA to be false with facts and evidence. Do you know how to use facts and evidence to verify something, and prove it wrong?

You seem to cherry pick statements, we now list some witnesses who are as good as your witnesses (who you say said something else in 2001?)

Robbins James “The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory.”

Lagasse, William “The 757’s flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted.”

Hemphill, Albert “Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon.”

Albert did not know which, but an Airbus was not missing.

Wallace, Alan “Wallace and Skipper were walking along the right side of the truck (Young was in the station) [near the crash site]when the two looked up and saw an airplane… white airplane with orange and blue trim heading almost straight at him… and was coming in low and fast… just 200 yards away-the length of two football fields… He didn’t know how long he’d have or whether he could outrun the oncoming plane… Wallace and his buddy Mark “We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus.”

Timmerman, Tim “A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757… I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel.” Tim was asked again if it was a 767, he says no it was 757. Too bad he will not change his testimony for the Pentacon.

“Sgt. William Lagasse… ... The 757’s flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted… I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American airlines on it.” Wow, how did you get him to change this testimony? Time?

ElHallan, Aziz “A huge airplane ... a 757, American Airlines probably flying around 60 to 70 yards on top of my car… as I mentioned to you, I do fly small airplanes occasionally, ...… .”

Steve Riskus “I took these pictures less then 1 minute after I watched the American airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on September 11 2001. I left shortly after the pictures were taken in fear of further attacks… Yes, I did actually see the plane impact the building.”

Statements verified when you find out AA is missing flight 77. The wreckage was a 757 and it was flight 77. A coincidence, AA is missing a plane, it is in the Pentagon, these people saw it. Wow.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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?


Umm yes...they did.....



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


So basically, even if we do meet the requirements you mentioned in an earlier post, then you add further requirements to make it impossible to provide evidence that you will accept. Nice.

One of Craig's own witnesses.....

video.google.com... 7

Says one thing back in 2001....says something different to Craig in 2006...

BTW, Police do NOT "always back into" parking spots. I RARELY see a police car backed into a spot.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


William Lagasse??

You are using him as proof that the plane hit the building?



Could you be any more disingenuous?

Lagasse proves that the plane could NOT have hit the building.

This is EXACTLY why the mere quoted statements are not valid evidence.

To be valid evidence their testimony needs to be documented first hand and they need to be asked questions on an investigative level.

That is what the media, the government, and the movement has failed to do but it's the scientific rigor that CIT has demanded and accomplished and what has ultimately PROVEN a military deception on 9/11.

This is the ENTIRE POINT and although the actual evidence beachnut is referencing proves the plane COULD NOT have hit the building here he is ignoring the facts as they pertain to the real evidence while using out of context quotes to insist that everything suits the official story perfectly.

What an excellent example of pure denial of the hard evidence while reveling in unadulterated faith.

Thanks for perfectly making my point beachnut.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Says one thing back in 2001....says something different to Craig in 2006...

BTW, Police do NOT "always back into" parking spots. I RARELY see a police car backed into a spot.


Brooks NEVER contradicted the north side claim.

He saw it on the north side like everyone else and he has said he would willingly testify to this fact under oath.

Have you called him and told him you think he is a liar who changed his story even though everyone else corroborates his claim?



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



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Ok so still no independent verifiable evidence but LOTS of hearsay and faith based claims.

If the official story followers were true skeptics they would hold the official conspiracy theory to the same scientific rigor that they hold all other conspiracy theories.

It's clear that they have not and THAT is the main point of this thread.



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



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
BTW, Police do NOT "always back into" parking spots. I RARELY see a police car backed into a spot.


Yes police will normally back into a parking space if they are going to be a while.

Go to a police station or academy, you will see almost all the vehicles are backed into a space.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
BTW, Police do NOT "always back into" parking spots. I RARELY see a police car backed into a spot.


Yes police will normally back into a parking space if they are going to be a while.

Go to a police station or academy, you will see almost all the vehicles are backed into a space.


Been there, done that. 2001 graduate Naval Law Enforcement training at your service (yes I have since transferred to Air Force and gone back to working on airplanes). Normally takes more time to back into a space than to run in and take care of business. Although, I suppose I could carry my camera around for a few days and take pictures of the cops around here and their parking habits............



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Says one thing back in 2001....says something different to Craig in 2006...

BTW, Police do NOT "always back into" parking spots. I RARELY see a police car backed into a spot.


Brooks NEVER contradicted the north side claim.

He saw it on the north side like everyone else and he has said he would willingly testify to this fact under oath.

Have you called him and told him you think he is a liar who changed his story even though everyone else corroborates his claim?



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


No, I have not called him to tell him he is a liar. I have listened to two separate interviews he did. One in 2001 and then yours. He contradicts himself. Of course, as I have pointed out, five years after the fact...quite sure his memory has possibly gotten a bit fuzzy...then again, I do not know what kind of leading questions you posed to him..............



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Been there, done that. 2001 graduate Naval Law Enforcement training at your service


Also been there and done that. 1987 graduate of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. 12 years as a police officer before going into agency as a civilian analyst and collections.

I go to a state police training center right now and take a photo that will show almost all the vehicles backed into spaces.

Simple reason is becasue a lot of accidents happen backing out of parking areas, so the back into the spaces so they can pull out.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut


ElHallan, Aziz “A huge airplane ... a 757, American Airlines probably flying around 60 to 70 yards on top of my car… as I mentioned to you, I do fly small airplanes occasionally, ...… .”



I have been trying to keep this thread on topic and not get bogged down in debate but I couldn't resist addressing this alleged witness particularly since his first hand "testimony" does exist and he is an alleged pilot.

Watch this extremely strange interview with him where he shows off an alleged piece of the plane that he supposedly decided was ok to take home and parade on the news like it's show and tell!

Google Video Link


Isn't the strange smirk on his face during most of the interview unsettling? Particularly when the reporter says that "it's almost macabre to have this".

Now check this out....

He claims he was on route 27 for "a good 20 minutes" after the event which is when we are supposed to believe he simply snatched a piece of the aircraft that allegedly landed by his car.

But here he is up at the Navy Annex in the very first Jason Ingersoll image that was taken less than 5 minutes after the event. We know this because we have the original images with the time stamp AND because we confirmed it direct with Jason Ingersoll himself.


Here is the original:



And why does he say "most of the cars had their windshields broken because of the sound of the airplane"????

Yet NOBODY else reported such a ridiculous thing happening!

We have hard photographic evidence that Aziz was NOT on that highway at the time of the attack.

Yet here he is being quoted by beachnut years later as an alleged "pilot" witness after he was paraded in the media to sell the 757 impact myth on 9/11.

Investigation and confirmation is PARAMOUNT people.

Cutting and pasting quotes out of context is not valid evidence.







[edit on 6-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

No, I have not called him to tell him he is a liar. I have listened to two separate interviews he did. One in 2001 and then yours. He contradicts himself. Of course, as I have pointed out, five years after the fact...quite sure his memory has possibly gotten a bit fuzzy...then again, I do not know what kind of leading questions you posed to him..............


No he doesn't which is why you won't quote this alleged contradiction.


He says to the "left" in BOTH interviews even though he was facing the opposite way in my interview because obviously I wanted the citgo and Pentagon in the background.

As if I could "lead" him and all the witness to say the complete opposite of what they saw!



Brooks, Lagasse, Robert Turcios, AND Sean Boger were in that area EVERY DAY before the event and every day leading up to my interview with them.

The clearly knew which side they saw the plane and were 100% sure of it which is why their independent accounts of this all matched.

You are denying evidence because of your faith and it exposes your confirmation bias and willingness to reject scientific reasoning.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
While I'm at it I might as well address all the smelling of "jet fuel" quotes that C.O. posted earlier.

First off I wonder how many people can really tell the difference between burning jet fuel and burning diesel:


Plus we ALSO know that tanks full of propane AND "aviation fuel" were exploding.



One of the Pentagon's two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was "totally engulfed in flames," Anderson says. Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one.
www.newsweek.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
This is a graph that shows where the remains were found and if they were at the Pentagon or on flight 77.




Ok and this needs to be addressed as well.

This image was submitted as evidence in the Moussaoui trial and each circle is supposed to represent the location of where each body was found inside the Pentagon.

But look at the incredible concentration of bodies/remains that were allegedly found around AND outside of the C-ring hole.

Yet NO remains are seen in that area at all in any of the photographic evidence.





We interviewed a fire captain who was all throughout that exact area.

He's been on 7 plane crashes throughout his career and doesn't believe for a second that a plane caused this damage.

We'll present his account in the Researcher's Edition of The PentaCon.





[edit on 6-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
No remains. Seems you have never seen human remains in a 500 mph impact. You are lucky. Too bad your photo is not right after the impact.

You could go to aircraft accident school and learn about why you fail to see what is there.

Jet fuel is just like diesel. So?

And your witnesses lied in 2001? You attacked a witness who saw a 757, yet your own witness said 757. Is your witness a liar too? What are you trying to say, all the witnesses, even yours are government agents spreading disinformation?

I mean, you attack people you have not even interviewed? Why? Yet your witnesses now have changed their stories and if we use the "facts" they present we find your flight path is impossible, even though in 2001 they saw a 757, now you say they did not? Your own witness said a 757 hit the Pentagon. Is he a liar now or in 2001? What is up? This does not make sense now, you can't use new testimony that was different in 2001; that impeaches your witness. You can't say your witness barely speak English to impeach him for others to use, when you use him support your impossible flight path, and yet he supports the large fast aircraft which does not contradict the 77 as a 757 or the FDR found in the Pentagon with all the tiny pieces of people you now say are not body parts because they are just blood and parts as small as paper clips of slivers of bone and guts.

This is not even funny when you think about how you are taking the witness statements and only using snippets to support ideas solely made up by yourself. The only thing you have done that is noteworthy is re interview people, but then you have thrown out what does not support your story and only keep what you thing supports the Pentagon fly over with no 757. When you find evidence, it will be neat to see it.

Next you will add people who say a plane did not cause the damage and leave body parts, yet they are not trained aircraft investigators familiar with a 535 mph impact. That becomes the hearsay you are trying to avoid. Untrained people making false statements; how many will you post?

[edit on 6-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


It looks like they have a concentration of at least 50 people in that area yet NO remains are visible in that area AT ALL in any of the photographs.

The fire captain we interviewed most certainly HAS seen the results of plane crashes and he was right there.

He does not believe for a second that a plane hit the building.

Clearly he does not base his belief on pure faith like so many of you alleged "skeptics".



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Jet fuel is just like diesel. So?



So there is hard evidence for MULTIPLE reasons why people would have smelled it that had NOTHING to do with a plane crash.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Been there, done that. 2001 graduate Naval Law Enforcement training at your service (yes I have since transferred to Air Force and gone back to working on airplanes). Normally takes more time to back into a space than to run in and take care of business. Although, I suppose I could carry my camera around for a few days and take pictures of the cops around here and their parking habits............


This isn't about simply parking the car this is about when they are standing.

If a cop is inside the car he will back in so he can leave fast AND so he can see what's going on in front of him.

You see this all the time.

But it doesn't matter......Brooks said the plane was on the "left" in BOTH interviews!

He NEVER said it was on the south side of the station and he completely LAUGHED at how ridiculous the notion is in person.

Furthermore even AFTER seeing the movie he told us that he stands by the north side claim and that he would willingly testify to this under oath.

He even told us that it's "possible" he could have been fooled about the impact.

Lagasse has ALSO told us that he stands by the north side claim even after seeing the movie. In fact he goes so far as to say that the "engineers" who wrote the ASCE report are WRONG because they didn't talk to him!

This is how certain he is of the north side claim to this day:



"Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I except [sic] the fact that there can be
miscaculations on my part, but NOT wether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station
."

-William Lagasse via email
(emphasis added)


These guys know where the plane was and nothing can convince them otherwise.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join