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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Good enough answer about the WTC now lets get back to the Pentagon!

Not trying to derail the thread AT ALL. That is why I stated what I did at the end of my post before and I will state again....

You guys have a great debate going here I am just afraid that the OP is not going to accept anything you have to put out there. I respect the OP's intent of the thread but I really do believe there is nothing anyone can provide that contrasts his views that will be accepted as proof. Maybe I am wrong.
But as I stated before, IF anyone did provide NEW PROOF they would be up to their necks in some serious poo for witholding evidence on a federal case.




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by hybridx
 


Hybrid....

You are 100% correct in your assumption. Craig will not disclose the list of who he has interviewed. Even if he did, we can not be sure if it is accurate.

I believe this thread is nothing but bait for all.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 





I believe this thread is nothing but bait for all.


I completely agree. If his ideas had any merit, it would be all over the MSM. end of story.

I was happy to see the CIT forum go from ATS, I hoped that would be the end of this nonsense.

CT



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist
 

So, with that said would it be irresponsible to suggest the thread be closed?

Again, I enjoy the debate and find some of the theories put out by the OP interesting but something is missing. (I think)

What EXACTLY is the OP suggesting occurred at the Pentagon? I am sure we could argue all day if a 757 actually crashed into the Pentagon without some really good visual evidence.(photos/video)

Myself, I really do not know what story to buy.

However I want to know what the OP really thinks happened at the Pentagon step by step. With all due respect, you cannot challenge someone to give their explanation without giving a clear scenario of what you believe happened.

Not trying to offend ya' OP but man, you have to have a solid scenario yourself before you challenge anyone. I can argue peoples ideas all day unless if I dont state EXACTLY where I stand from the get-go and that seems like what you are doing.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Obvious, I have a question that seems to have never been brought up. It appears that every person you list as a witnesses that states anything about fuel, either smelling, seeing it burn, smelling flesh burn, witnessing the actions of the firefighters comes from articles that are no longer available and can't be found. All links are gone for some reason. I'm talking about the original articles that quote these witnesses. Everything available on the net is just quotes from the main source, but no original source is out there. At least not to my knowledge. Can you or Craig verify this? If so, why is this?

I have more to add but would like to hear from either of you.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yes that means that almost none exists but that's my point.

And this is why I think this thread is poor - a waste of time. Maybe even a distraction. I'd far rather see some more effort being put into either verifying or else retracting the claims made about the feasibility of the VDOT flyover.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They remind me of angry judgmental Christian fundamentalist moral police types who are really closet sexual deviants.

I'm sure this rather tasteless assessment works both ways.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   


Obvious, I have a question that seems to have never been brought up. It appears that every person you list as a witnesses that states anything about fuel, either smelling, seeing it burn, smelling flesh burn, witnessing the actions of the firefighters comes from articles that are no longer available and can't be found. All links are gone for some reason. I'm talking about the original articles that quote these witnesses. Everything available on the net is just quotes from the main source, but no original source is out there. At least not to my knowledge. Can you or Craig verify this? If so, why is this?


Here are links to eyewitness testimony of the people on the scene and
the responders. Refer to my earlier post - are you looking for
accurate information or trying to validate some personal fantasty or
agenda? Most of the kook level stuff is gone - the owners having
got tired of this game (or mommy caught them and took away the
'computer....). Again question is what are you after? Information or
proving some fantasy or agenda?

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hybridx

You guys have a great debate going here I am just afraid that the OP is not going to accept anything you have to put out there. I respect the OP's intent of the thread but I really do believe there is nothing anyone can provide that contrasts his views that will be accepted as proof. Maybe I am wrong.
But as I stated before, IF anyone did provide NEW PROOF they would be up to their necks in some serious poo for witholding evidence on a federal case.


I never said it has to be "new" evidence.

Only independent, verifiable evidence.

I've said many times that any individual FIRST HAND (recorded audio or video) eyewitness account technically fits in that catagory.

Go to my website in my signature and you will find a whole host of independent verifiable evidence that we have personally obtained that proves the official story false.

The point of this thread is that people who choose to dismiss this corroborated hard evidence are rejecting evidence and scientific reasoning based on nothing but pure faith in what the government tells them.

Therefore they can not be considered true skeptics or critical thinkers and they reveal a confirmation bias.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by hybridx


Not trying to offend ya' OP but man, you have to have a solid scenario yourself before you challenge anyone. I can argue peoples ideas all day unless if I dont state EXACTLY where I stand from the get-go and that seems like what you are doing.



That's the entire point bro.

I most certainly DO have a solid scenario based on independent verifiable evidence.

I have personally spoken with dozens of witnesses, first responders, victims and heavily analyzed all previously published accounts by plotting their location, analyzing their POV, and attempting to contact most all that exist while continuously seeking out new ones.

There are about 10 video presentations on my site with all this information and our complete hypothesis is included.

There are many threads about this information but this thread is to demonstrate how people who reject evidence like this are merely defending the official story based on faith and are therefore NOT legitimate skeptics

So yes...it most certainly would be irresponsible to suggest the thread be closed.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yes that means that almost none exists but that's my point.

And this is why I think this thread is poor - a waste of time. Maybe even a distraction. I'd far rather see some more effort being put into either verifying or else retracting the claims made about the feasibility of the VDOT flyover.


That thread exists and it will not be going away. A very thorough update will be forthcoming.

In the mean time, it's perfectly my right to point out how the so called "skeptics" who dismiss evidence are functioning almost entirely on faith in the government.

You seem to agree with this notion yet STILL have a problem with this thread for some reason.

Perhaps it's logic that you would rather not see pointed out but I find it an important point within the frame of the 9/11 discussion.



I'm sure this rather tasteless assessment works both ways.


No it does not.

Call it tasteless all you want but if the shoe fits....

The reason it doesn't work both ways is because I most certainly DO provide independent verifiable evidence to support my claims.

That's the entire point.

Why shouldn't the official conspiracy theory defenders be held to the same scientific rigor that they hold us to and that I hold myself to?

Why does pointing out this logic bother you so much?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

There are witnesses who saw 77 hit the Pentagon; how do you dismiss that? Explain how you take witness statements only and dispute the witness, some of your own, who saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Please explain how this scientific research ignores statements by some witnesses, cherry pick your own witnesses who saw the plane hit, and come up with anything but a contradiction to what happen on 9/11?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 



Nothing has been "cherry picked".

We have attempted to contact many dozens in the previously published witness list and found previously UNKNOWN witnesses as well.

How many have you contacted? How can you accuse me of "cherry picking" when you haven't even stepped foot in the orchard?

We provide independent verifiable evidence PROVING a deliberate military deception in regards to the impact.

You have provided zero independent verifiable evidence of a 757 impact.

That means your belief in the official conspiracy theory is purely faith based while our claims are backed up with evidence.

Why do you reject evidence and scientific reasoning in favor of speculation and faith based claims?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The point of this thread is that people who choose to dismiss this corroborated hard evidence are rejecting evidence and scientific reasoning

Therefore they can not be considered true skeptics or critical thinkers and they reveal a confirmation bias.



You're rejecting the "hard evidence" that AA77 hit the pentagon.
Now who's biased?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The point of this thread is that people who choose to dismiss this corroborated hard evidence are rejecting evidence and scientific reasoning based on nothing but pure faith in what the government tells them.


1) I need to set this straight. I for one rely on government data only so much, considering their data is often incomplete or maybe purposefully messed up. Most of my understanding of the situation actually comes from multiple photographs from different sources found consistent with no clue of alterations, multiple eyewitnesses I see no reason to doubt (except a few including, yes, Lloyd and Aziz) and from self-described 9/11 Truth researchers like Pickering, Farmer, Desmoulins, Hoffman, etc. Even some of your findings are useful. How is that pure faith in the "government" story?

2) And as pointless as this thread is, I'll ask regarding your evidence; What COLOR(s) was the plane in question according to your corroborating witnesses? Certainly they can agree on something as simple as that I should think. If I want to find which witnesses are liars by you, people describing the wrong paint job should stand out so what do your 'REAL' witnesses collectively say?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


1) Neither you or ANY any of the sources you mentioned specifically provide ANY independent evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. You simply believe it because it is what you were told which makes your belief faith based.

2) Objective investigators do not require eyewitnesses to be completely infallible regarding all details in order to accept the specific claims that are corroborated. It makes perfect sense that they would differ on something like color. This has no bearing on the fact that they ALL saw the plane fly in the same place scientifically proving this is where it flew.


Corroboration is the scientific method used by investigators to determine which claims by eyewitnesses are correct.

Funny how you STILL refuse to accept this fact in your continued desperation to dismiss hard evidence in favor of faith.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You seem to agree with this notion yet STILL have a problem with this thread for some reason.

I have a problem with this crappy 'heads I win, tails you lose' thread. Generally, I'm a supporter of your work. This one is lame.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Call it tasteless all you want but if the shoe fits....

To infer that anyone who disagrees with you can, in some way, be likened to a sexual deviant is tasteless. In fact, it's pretty disgusting. You should be ashamed.

And no, the shoe doesn't fit.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Sorry I didnt mean just NEW proof. I accept that folly.

However, independent, verifiable evidence would have already been in the official investigation. Anything else would be independent, unverifiable evidence would it not? If it is unverifiable that would make irrelevant to the investigation in court or out of court.

Honestly, I do not wanna jump to your website (would that be considered promotion?) just to hear someone tell a story that I would have to accept on faith that they were telling the truth.

What I hate to tell ya is that while it is interesting to debate what hit the Pentagon we will never know for sure. But, if this information you have from your own investigation I would rather it be on here in quotes than go surfing around for your site to get hits.

I know it is a pain to copy and paste all those things but I just saw a moderator do it in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If he can do it I am sure you can. Thats all I ask. I want to see your argument on here without having to hopscotch around your site when I could just read your side of the challenge here on ATS.

If you are going to go as far as to challenge someone put the breadth of your part on ATS. I know people link all the time but most of the time it is to independent news sources and not a site that they own or are a part of.

But what it all comes down to is faith no matter what side you are coming from. To me I am receptive to all sides but I just felt that you put a challenge out there without giving us anything but a "visit my site for details" label on it. (not actual quote)



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Corroboration is the scientific method used by investigators to determine which claims by eyewitnesses are correct.

Then you must not be using this method, because all of your witnesses corroborate the impact.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants


You're rejecting the "hard evidence" that AA77 hit the pentagon.
Now who's biased?


Please provide independent verifiable evidence specifically that a 757 hit the Pentagon as the challenge in the OP requests.

So far none has been presented.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Maybe I am missing something!

I have not really totally been in agreement that something as large as a 757 hit the Pentagon BUT what do you think hit the pentagon is my point. All I am seeing is you endlessly arguing that we are accepting a scenario based on faith but I still have not seen ON THIS SITE exactly what you think hit the Pentagon.

I really want to see what your side of the story is. ON THIS SITE!




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join