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: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
That's funny because a court of law did accept the DNA as evidence. And the problem with Craig's argument is that he is making an argument stating that the "government" is guilty, with no proof. This is why Craig can't take his case to court because it would be thrown out. He is making direct accusations about a vague entity, and without proof. he keeps thinking he can verify his claims an assumptions and conjecture based on 4 people having the same recollection, though we all know that it's not reliable. And likewise his own witnesses prove him wrong. It's completely laughable and thus not legitimate media or court or anyone will take it seriously. he could jsut as easily be arguing that the government secretly moved the Citgo sign.

And the whole reason he started a thread about poisoning the well and trying to cast doubt on the impact is because he knows the biggest hole in his theory is the unavoidable outcome that results from him being right. That someone came up with some absolutely an uneeded absurd plan to fly a plane over a building and set off explosives at the exact same time, while hoping that they just happen to get lucky enough that no one saw or was filming at that moment and praying for that 1 in a million chance no one would happen to notice a 600mph jet flying by. And then we are expected to believe that these 'suspects" also planted all these light poles and an entire planes worth of parts there at the scene in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing.

So in order to accept Craig's theory and arguments we have to accept this huge long list of the most absurd things anyone has ever heard in their life. And we're supposed to accept that over the common occurrence of witnesses remembering wrong.

So should it be any wonder why these guys aren't taken seriously? So better to try and poison the well than be honest about what they really are expecting us to accept. Craig is just using common argument tricks to try and cover for his vast shortcomings. The goal being to focus more so on other people's arguments and pretend to be right by casting doubt on theirs. All one needs to do is look at these inevitable results of his claims to see that they are outright laughable.




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


What baffles me is this:
If a plane did hit, where is the wreckage. Planes have crashed before this happened and there was always wreckage of the plane. Why not here?

That was until I read this, it explains a whole lot of things that I did not know before: 911review.com...


[edit on 7-4-2008 by Waitingsolong]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
That's funny because a court of law did accept the DNA as evidence.


Not in the context of a trial where the government is the defendant which is what I was hypothetically referring to.



And the problem with Craig's argument is that he is making an argument stating that the "government" is guilty, with no proof.


I didn't even read the rest of your convoluted post because this premise is false and certainly not the case.

The very premise of this forum and for those who choose to look at the events of 9/11 critically and objectively is that the government story is not to be accepted as the default truth.

There are more than enough anomalies and suspicious circumstances surrounding the event to warrant an investigation into government involvement.

THAT Mr. Charlie Brown sidekick is the context of this discussion and ALL discussions in this forum.

If you wish to participate in these discussions the least you could do is hypothetically accept this context.

After making it over this mental hurdle you will realize that information or data that has been completely controlled and provided for by the government is not valid evidence in support of government innocence concerning the crimes of 9/11.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
My challenge for INSIDE JOB supporters is to provide independent verifiable evidence SPECIFICALLY that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.


[edit on 7-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waitingsolong
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


What baffles me is this:
If a plane did hit, where is the wreckage. Planes have crashed before this happened and there was always wreckage of the plane. Why not here?

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Waitingsolong]


The pentagon conspiracy theory was perpetuated by Fema and the Pentagon to derail to the fact that no plane (flight 93) crashed in Shanksville.


The question that should be asked is " Why was the Pentagon that was hit by a plane, retrofitted with blast resistant walls and windows by the MAsonary Arts company months before 9/11?

The odd this is that the completed only one wedge. The wedge that was hit on 911.
They obviously knew.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by snoopy
That's funny because a court of law did accept the DNA as evidence.


Not in the context of a trial where the government is the defendant which is what I was hypothetically referring to.



And the problem with Craig's argument is that he is making an argument stating that the "government" is guilty, with no proof.


I didn't even read the rest of your convoluted post because this premise is false and certainly not the case.

The very premise of this forum and for those who choose to look at the events of 9/11 critically and objectively is that the government story is not to be accepted as the default truth.

There are more than enough anomalies and suspicious circumstances surrounding the event to warrant an investigation into government involvement.

THAT Mr. Charlie Brown sidekick is the context of this discussion and ALL discussions in this forum.

If you wish to participate in these discussions the least you could do is hypothetically accept this context.

After making it over this mental hurdle you will realize that information or data that has been completely controlled and provided for by the government is not valid evidence in support of government innocence concerning the crimes of 9/11.





Ah but Craig, you don't even have anything to even suggest the government (again notice your use of vague terms which would never work in court) was guilty of anything to begin with. Maybe you could find a defendant who wears a big tall hat and has a red/white/blue flag outfit on with the long white beard named uncle sam?

And no the premise of this forum is ABSOLUTELY NOT people who disagree with the government. That is 100% BS. Please do not tarnish the reputation of this forum. It is indeed for critical thinkers and for critical debate. it is NOT a forum for people who all agree to have the same opinion as you. What makes this forum so great is that there are critical thinkers on every side and not people like you who simply want their opinion to be seen as factual and everyone else removed. Go start your own forum for that.

You didn't read the rest of my post because you know I am right. We all know that the unavoidable outcome of your theories are absolutely and insanely absurd. If you were forced to explain what happened as the result of your claims, you would be a laughing stock. So hence your attempt to try and draw attention away from that and instead poison the well. And of course doing so goes against your very own witnesses. Again, it's laughable. Your claim is that your witnesses are infallible because they all agree with each other. Yet when they all agree on points that disproves your claims, you dismiss them. That's not research, that's fraud.


Take your conjecture somewhere else and leave this forum to critical thinkers. So long as their is critical thinking on this forum, your theories are never going to fly. Start your own forum where you can get rid of critical thiners and you might be happy.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
no matter what you hand a truther, it won't convince him because they have already made up their mind with ALL of the evidence that shows this was done by the 19 Al-Qaida members and NO evidence to suggest an inside job, only theories. so really, trying to answer their questions is a waste of time. if an "independent" source verified it was a 757, they would say they weren't "independant" enough, as is the case with the 911 commission. it's really become a joke.

we have video of the hijackers entering the airport (handed over by independent source), their names shown on the flight passenger lists (independent source) as well as black box audio played for a jury and the families of flight 93 (independent source) with transcripts released(911research.wtc7.net...) which are partly spoken in arabic and mention at least one hijacker by name (saeed al-Ghamdi, whos last will video was found - www.youtube.com...). to suggest any of this is fake and that somebody would put themselves on the line, to be easily caught, and perpetrated any of this is ABSURD. no amount of theories, debunked or new, can disprove any of this. it's time to give it up.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


You paranoid people need answer only two things. Why did Bin Laden take credit for it? And how could they cover something so massive when they can't hide anything now-a-days?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
You know, I had a friend on Flight 77.

I know what was returned to her parents.

You can argue angles and flight paths all you want. There remains no doubt that the flight, an American Airlines 757, hit the Pentagon.

To argue anything else is just foolish.

While there are certainly some interesting questions regarding the entire 9/11 event, this isn't one of them.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Q Level
You know, I had a friend on Flight 77.

I know what was returned to her parents.

You can argue angles and flight paths all you want. There remains no doubt that the flight, an American Airlines 757, hit the Pentagon.

To argue anything else is just foolish.

While there are certainly some interesting questions regarding the entire 9/11 event, this isn't one of them.


The woman from AA who helped identify the plane from the wreckage at the scene on that day is a big conspiracy theorist. But she lost a lot of friends on that flight and personally identified some of them as well as the parts of the plane to confirm beyond doubt it was flight 77. She feels the same way as you. One of the workers at the Pentagon had a son on that flight who was identified at the site as well. If I were these people I would be extremely upset at the accusations made by people like Craig and the insult to everyones intelligence they display. I just think it takes a really low person to use someone else's tragedy for their personal gain.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

Ah but Craig, you don't even have anything to even suggest the government (again notice your use of vague terms which would never work in court) was guilty of anything to begin with. Maybe you could find a defendant who wears a big tall hat and has a red/white/blue flag outfit on with the long white beard named uncle sam?



I don't care what you want to call it. If you want to be anal and call it "secret cabal at the highest levels of the government" go right ahead.

The point still stands because if you at least hypothetically consider the notion that the 9/11 official story has been proven false that can ONLY mean that very powerful individuals with all the resources, control, and access of the U.S. covert intelligence operations had to be who pulled it off.

I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise. Are you?

I've never claimed to know exactly who to indict.




And no the premise of this forum is ABSOLUTELY NOT people who disagree with the government. That is 100% BS. Please do not tarnish the reputation of this forum. It is indeed for critical thinkers and for critical debate. it is NOT a forum for people who all agree to have the same opinion as you. What makes this forum so great is that there are critical thinkers on every side and not people like you who simply want their opinion to be seen as factual and everyone else removed. Go start your own forum for that.


This is the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory forum at ATS.

What about that do you NOT understand?

How could it be put any more simply for you?

I never said the premise of this forum is "people who disagree with the government" or that you have to believe in 9/11 conspiracies or what I believe to post here. You are completely twisting my statements to be something I never said so you can act indignant and attack me. Please try to comprehend English sentences accurately.

Here is my actual statement...read it real slow:

"The very premise of this forum and for those who choose to look at the events of 9/11 critically and objectively is that the government story is not to be accepted as the default truth. "


In other words the premise of this forum is to consider ALTERNATIVE theories regarding 9/11. So yes the premise of this form most certainly IS to at least hypothetically consider the notion that a"secret cabal at the highest levels of the government" or "the government" for short was involved.

CIT has simply taken it a step further than most by obtaining and providing the evidence that proves it.



You didn't read the rest of my post because you know I am right. We all know that the unavoidable outcome of your theories are absolutely and insanely absurd. If you were forced to explain what happened as the result of your claims, you would be a laughing stock. So hence your attempt to try and draw attention away from that and instead poison the well. And of course doing so goes against your very own witnesses. Again, it's laughable. Your claim is that your witnesses are infallible because they all agree with each other. Yet when they all agree on points that disproves your claims, you dismiss them. That's not research, that's fraud.


What is this vague nonsense?

You are stringing together a bunch of sweeping generalized hollow accusatory sentences without referencing or sourcing ANYTHING specific.

You have no right to accuse me as being a "fraud" for no reason and frankly it's blowing my mind that they keep allowing these personal attacks.

This forum used to be real good at not allowing them.

I don't know what's going on.



Take your conjecture somewhere else and leave this forum to critical thinkers. So long as their is critical thinking on this forum, your theories are never going to fly. Start your own forum where you can get rid of critical thiners and you might be happy.


What conjecture?

Who are you to tell me where to post?

I am one of the few who actually backs up my claims with personally obtained evidence just like you acknowledged in that attack thread by megaman while gushing about how much you have learned from me.

Way to flip flop.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

The woman from AA who helped identify the plane from the wreckage at the scene on that day is a big conspiracy theorist. But she lost a lot of friends on that flight and personally identified some of them as well as the parts of the plane to confirm beyond doubt it was flight 77.


This is such b.s.

"T Carter" was a flight attendant with AA.

Sorry but flight attendants can not and are not used to "identify plane wreckage".

Why are you making such absurd claims?



She feels the same way as you. One of the workers at the Pentagon had a son on that flight who was identified at the site as well. If I were these people I would be extremely upset at the accusations made by people like Craig and the insult to everyones intelligence they display. I just think it takes a really low person to use someone else's tragedy for their personal gain.


I simply provide evidence in hopes of reaching justice for this tragedy.

None of the information that this flight attendant or ANYONE who was not a witness and was only at the scene after the event saw has any bearing on the evidence that we provide which is pretty much all regarding the flight path and actual event itself.

Cut the appeal to emotion.

That is nothing but a logical fallacy and therefore does NOT refute evidence.

Some "critical thinker" you are.





[edit on 7-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   


I don't care what you want to call it. If you want to be anal and call it "secret cabal at the highest levels of the government" go right ahead.

The point still stands because if you at least hypothetically consider the notion that the 9/11 official story has been proven false that can ONLY mean that very powerful individuals with all the resources, control, and access of the U.S. covert intelligence operations had to be who pulled it off.

I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise. Are you?

I've never claimed to know exactly who to indict.



What you don't understand is that you have NOT proven anything false. You simply are using the weakest form of evidence. Evidence that no accident investigator would even consider and using it to dismiss all the strong evidence. That is why you are a fraud and that is why no one takes you seriously.

You never claims to know who to indict? And why is that? Because you're just making this stuff up. You have no evidence that is usable. And your own evidence contradicts these absurd claims. How do you expect to be taken seriously if your own evidence proves you wrong???






This is the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory forum at ATS.

What about that do you NOT understand?

How could it be put any more simply for you?


yes it's a conspiracy forum. Not an 'everyone agree with me' forum. What about that do you not understand? The forum is to DISCUSS 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's not to sit around and blow smoke up your asses. How can we put it more simply for you? If you want a forum just for people who agree with you, go start your own. The rest of us want to discuss 9/11 conspiracies.




I never said the premise of this forum is "people who disagree with the government" or that you have to believe in 9/11 conspiracies or what I believe to post here. You are completely twisting my statements to be something I never said so you can act indignant and attack me. Please try to comprehend English sentences accurately.

Here is my actual statement...read it real slow:

"The very premise of this forum and for those who choose to look at the events of 9/11 critically and objectively is that the government story is not to be accepted as the default truth. "



Yes and your basis for looking at events critically is simply anyone who agrees with you. You want to use it as an excuse to get rid or people who don't agree with you. The only ones here not thinking critically is your little group which is why the majority of people here, including those who strongly feel 9/11 is a big conspiracy want you GONE. Even the most hard core here understand that you guys have no interest in critical thinking. you guys are here for your egos and your egos only. You have no desire for learning or critical thinking.

So stop trying to redefine what this forum is about. This is why many people feel your group has been tarnishing this forum and misrepresenting it.




In other words the premise of this forum is to consider ALTERNATIVE theories regarding 9/11. So yes the premise of this form most certainly IS to at least hypothetically consider the notion that a"secret cabal at the highest levels of the government" or "the government" for short was involved.


WRONG WRONG WRONG. The purpose is to DISCUSS 9/11 conspiracies. Not to simply agree that the government is wrong and that you are right. We have discussed your hypothesis and overwhelmingly everyone agrees you are completely wrong.

And there is a section for your hypothesis of the highest levels of government imagination stuff. it's called "Skunk Works". Go there an you can discuss to your hearts content. You can make up everything you want. In this section we are here to discuss these theories and that includes questioning them.





CIT has simply taken it a step further than most by obtaining and providing the evidence that proves it.


Again, you have not proven a single thing. In fact, of all the conspiracy theories it's pretty much unanimous around here that yours is by far the weakest and has the least evidence of any of them. Simply pretending you have proven your claims isn't good enough. You have to do more than say it, you have to REALY prove it. And using unreliable evidence to dismiss reliable evidence and then dismiss everything else and replace it with conjecture is not proving anything.






What is this vague nonsense?

You are stringing together a bunch of sweeping generalized hollow accusatory sentences without referencing or sourcing ANYTHING specific.

You have no right to accuse me as being a "fraud" for no reason and frankly it's blowing my mind that they keep allowing these personal attacks.

This forum used to be real good at not allowing them.

I don't know what's going on.


You're going to need more than personal attacks an antics here. This forum IS good and that's why you guys are losing your ground here. The forum is tired of your antics and lack of critical thinking. And my accusing you of fraud is not based on nothing. It's based on your continual claims of proof which is absolutely absurd. And you have no business talking about personal attacks when the basis of your arguments are personal attacks. And then you act surprised when people question your integrity.

We are pointing out the flaws in your arguments. You pretend they are personal attacks and then launch personal attacks. It's outrageous. And the reason it comes to this is because you start your threads and everyone points out the flaws in them. Then your only response is to basically say " No we have proof" despite everyone disproving your so called proof. So then it comes down to simply your antics.





What conjecture?

Who are you to tell me where to post?

I am one of the few who actually backs up my claims with personally obtained evidence just like you acknowledged in that attack thread by megaman while gushing about how much you have learned from me.

Way to flip flop.



Who am I to tell you where to post? May I remind you that that was in your response to you trying to tell me that I shouldn't be posting here because you think the forum is only for people who believe in alternate theories? Talk about BS of BS. You make a mockery of what is a great forum. What makes it great is the open discussion. Something you want ATS to do away with because god forbid people here not agree with your theories.

And stop pretending you back up your claims. We have proven your claims to be wrong over and over. Even the most hard core theorists agree with this. And your method is very simple. You use the weakest form of evidence to attempt to dismiss the strongest form of evidence. And what makes it worse is that your OWN evidence disagrees with your own claims.

And conjecture? Yes claiming the plane flew over the Pentagon and bombs going off, and super secret government groups pulling it all off are all examples of pure conjecture. You pretend you have proof and evidence and "back it up" by that same unreliable evidence that also disproves your own claims. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously?

[edit on 7-4-2008 by snoopy]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Anyone trying to support the "official theory" has quite a lot of hurdles to overcome. Start with simple physics. The alleged plane hit the building at around 50DEG angle of incidence. Now some simple vector math will tell you that if this were a solid immovable wall, half the energy will be directed toward the normal to the building, and half directed parallel to the building. This will also apply to the debris which carries the energy. Now this building structure had windows etc, so the walls did not represent a perfect reflecting surface. However, substantially a good percentage of the face of the building and amazingly the windows were intact. Thus if even 25% of the debris were to be directed outside the building with a path parallel to the front face, there would be large amounts of fuel (likely burning), airplane pieces, and passengers in front the building. In addition, the tree(s) to the left of the impact zone would easily get knocked/blown over by the deflected materials traveling at high speed. It is unknown just how far the debris might continue after an impact, however I would expect it to be all over the place, by the ton(s). As with the WTC videos, there is not a hint of the jet wash or wing tip vortices which could easily move anything around nearby, like cars, spools of wire, people, the lawn, trailers, etc. Initial photos and video do not show any such evidence.

Also there is emerging evidence for 2 separate events. An explosion followed by an impact some few minutes later. TBD on this question.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Guess

there is a thread down a little bit called something like "flyby" I think which puts to rest these claims of vortiseessesesesssis making it impossible. It's a demonstration of large planes doing exactly what my Lear and others have claimed is physically impossible.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 




Go start your own forum for that.


He did. After his laughable one here failed miserably.

And still no one cares what he has to say.

Craig:

Instead of wasting so much time trying to convince people of your "ground breaking, independently verified" rubbish. Just take what you think to your senator or congressman. Save us all the trouble.

CT



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
John Lear seems to make a few good points one is that there is no way an aircraft the size of a 757 can fly off the deck at 450 knots with the amout of lift I get the concept but never studied physics. One other point this off the subject but I will say that he does'nt believe that a person could go attempt and not finish for an FAA Private pilots licenece then fly a large airliner travelling at 5 miles a minute And head into WTC. I do not trust the Govt.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
LMAO just the fact that if a 757 was going the speed and altitude over the highway cars would have been blown like leaves due to turbelence this should be enough EVIDENCE that a 757 did not hit the pentagon.. not a single picture shows that it did... the impact hole shows computers intact and office furniture...WTF? where are the wings and the engine would have hit there are not signs of it on the pentagon..Consideing jet fuel vaporized tons alumnium, steel why the f**** grass still intact? is it magic grass? that lawn looks better then most residential lawns! maybe its indestructible due to the fact that it is a national asset the most important grass in the world that would not burn.. however tons of aluminum and steel did vaporized not to mention we have indestructible office equipment as well... and out of dozens of cameras only 1 camera is shown on a crappy ass still frame video... there are dozens of cameras.. and the argument that "due to national security reasons and the fact that your not important the pentagon wont release them doesnt hold water.. in fact I can wipe my ass with that.. if to just to shut up these stupid CT's why not show one more camera like lets say.. from the citgo station that was confiscated mins after the crash? that would shut up truthers real quick wouldnt it? but no... due to national security reasons they wont be released.... maybe the securty there are refering to is for the few criminals that orchestrated this crime... How do you explain the FAA commisioner testyfing before the 911 commmision(although it was conveniently left out) that he saw an air force personell walk in and ask cheney if the order still stands and kept repeating that the target was at this xx position.. and cheney flipped out in the end and said OFF COARSE THE ORDER STILL STANDS!! You federal conspiricy theorists are fools. and millions of innocent souls blood that have perished at the hands of these few criminals are on your hands. I say millions because the U.N puts the number of innocent civilians that perished in iraq are at 1 million due to direct military campaings bombings etc...this is a conservative number that was put out in 2006.. and does not include afghanistan... these are real people with real lives and families not terrorists.. these people are our brothers and sisters.. not some type of virus like the way they are being potrayed.. We are the evil nazi's at this point we have invaded a country without just cause.. and in reality there is no just cause to invade a country.. Unless it attacks you which in this case it did not.. and it didnt even have the WMD.... you fools you have been lied before what makes you think there arent more lies behind the lies? wake up before its too late for Humanity.. So many people have and are suffering..may god forgive this country for it has commited many murders in the name of "freedom"
when in fact we have given them only more death,suffering and much less freedom. Fools.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join