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.

 

CIT is done, it is time for them to go home.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

A 757 certainly isn't an F-15 that can fly with a missing wing and half a tail, which brings me nicely to my next point: where is the debris from these impacts? We only have perfect fallen light poles, no aircraft parts to go with it. Why not???
[edit on 7-4-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

There are tons of aircraft parts at all sites. Your "no aircraft parts" is false. There are parts of 77 all over the Pentagon and the lawn. If you missed the pictures, just google Pentagon 9/11 on google images. To make up "no aircraft parts" and not having real proof is not nice, and not something you should do. Evidence is required. If you had the evidence of no aircraft parts, you would also have a Pulitzer Prize, and that is a fact. Ask Bernstein and Woodard, they did this for real and they did it in less than 2 years, 9/11 truth has had 6 years and with all the claim of evidence, what happen?




posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by megaman1234
 

I would like very much to see the evidence you have compiled and the conclusion drawn. Not counters to arguments made on this site, but actual evidence. Thanks in advance.

Signed



Skeptical.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

There are tons of aircraft parts at all sites. Your "no aircraft parts" is false. There are parts of 77 all over the Pentagon and the lawn. If you missed the pictures, just google Pentagon 9/11 on google images.


Now could you please find pictures of other plane crashes that are consistent with the pentagon tragedy? I am pretty good with google, I can find the Pentagon pictures, but I cant find any pictures where over 99% of the mass of the plane was missing. Its been over 6 years now and there haven't been any posted on this site (certain of that) or any other (approaching certain). Thanks.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Tell you what, instead of constantly saying
'' shown this that and the other ''

create one massive thread, with ALL your pictures, your figures, your facts EVERYTHING actually put some time into why YOU believe 911 occured as the official line says.

Then, once and for all we can debate like adults over everything.


Me? : Clearly, we arent being told everything about 911.
That much I think everyone can agree on.

Wether it be the pentagon?
The collapse?
WTC 7?
Pentagon Footage?
Radar loss?
NORAD Scramble?
Pre-intel?
Iraq?

There's too many question makes over 911 for anyone to activley follow the 'official story'

And If you do, your nothing but brushing off anyones idea's about the reality, simply because youd rather be a blind patriot, you might as well shut up.

I congratulate and applaud CIT for their efforts.
Just because they havent solved the mystery, doesnt mean they havent provided some REAL insight into just WHY the official story cannot be true.

People often claim
'' various facts figurs and evidence have been shown over and over that debunk ALL the theories ''

Well sorry to say, if that were the case why would there be a 911 section?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

There are tons of aircraft parts at all sites. Your "no aircraft parts" is false. There are parts of 77 all over the Pentagon and the lawn. If you missed the pictures, just google Pentagon 9/11 on google images.


Now could you please find pictures of other plane crashes that are consistent with the pentagon tragedy? I am pretty good with google, I can find the Pentagon pictures, but I cant find any pictures where over 99% of the mass of the plane was missing. Its been over 6 years now and there haven't been any posted on this site (certain of that) or any other (approaching certain). Thanks.


Lets see.....other airliners that crashed into buildings..hmmm........other than 9/11, cannot think of another instance in which an airliner crashed into an office building. 99% of flight 77 wasnt missing, it was buried inside the Pentagon. That the government hasnt posted the pics on the internet...kudos to them. The pictures of the burned bodies at the Pentagon used in Zippy the pinheads trials were bad enough.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The alleged aircraft parts weren't off the aircraft that allegedly crashed, but because of this people are saying there were no aircraft parts at the Pentagon, or in the field at Shanksville.

Somewhere there is a quote from a Boeing representative who when questioned about an engine looking part from the Pentagon debris, said it didn't look anything like a part of a 757. He went on to say that it wasn't the APU either (these are small gas turbines, for those who are unaware).



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


And somewhere there is a quote from an employee of Rolls Royce (who actually built the engines) identifying wreckage as being part of the Rolls Royce engine....Ill take the word of the people who built the engine over that of someone who really didnt know what the engine looked like any day.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
See how the official story people get totally illogical? " 99% of the airplane is buried inside".....it really staggers the sound mind, does it not? Who could look at the evidence and NOT see NO airliner? How can anyone really believe that an airliner could somehow hit a reinforced building at extreme speeds and leave virtually NO debris? There are NO photographs of bodies in the Pentagon, other than the people who worked there.

There has never been any official confirmation that serial numbers from the planes were matched...why is that? If it is all true, what they say, then surely they could release adequate proof..surely. But since all they do is deny FOIA requests by saying that it is still under investigation and cover up, no proof is given or seen.How can anyone look at the pre-collapse pics of the Pentagon with ONE hole no bigger than 14X12 initially and believe that TWO massive six ton engines had hit that wall? How? How do they explain away both engines not leaving any holes but the NOSE of the cockpit can leave a hole that small? Unreal..just staggering.

How do they convince themselves? They cannot convince anyone that has critical reasoning ability, so maybe that is the key..?Something must account for unreasoned belief in a non-event. It reminds me of those crazy religions that were discovered in small islands in the Pacific after WW2...Debris from crashed planes and such sparked cults..Cargo Cults I think they were called..with natives desperate to believe in something, and so even a nonsensical one will do when told convincingly to uneducated people...and that is exactly what we have here:

people who are uneducated about the facts...and those that are educated but who do not know how to properly process info and connect it to reality..then there are the people who are in chronic denial psychologically in order to protect their paradigms from threatening changes that would harm their ability to function.

Some people just CANNOT accept that we are living in a nightmare of criminal, murdering fiends in high office and only out for profit and power. It makes us realize how utterly helpless and powerless we are, and that is a fact that many will not be able to live with, so they simply deny it, despite all of the evidence and facts...Evidence and facts mean nothing to someone whose very sanity and balance depends on known and trusted components of life being one's that are comprehended and comforting...not worrying and scary.

those of us fully aware of the state of affairs in this world do not allow ourselves the luxury of deceptive thought, because to do so would mean being literally a participant in the crimes..a willing victim..and that many of us will not accept short of death. We know that the Neocon/Mossad/NWO cabal pulled off a coup on 9-11; so does everyone on the Hill and in politics...these people are not stupid..they just know that to openly admit it would cause repercussions that they are not willing to see happen...and that is the key.

So Craig and gang, keep up the good work and know that the people who cannot see and will not see are pretty much beyond educating and helping, and so ignore them and continue to keep us informed on your efforts..



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

And somewhere there is a quote from an employee of Rolls Royce (who actually built the engines) identifying wreckage as being part of the Rolls Royce engine

Hmmm... a link would be good. I heard that this RR employee said it was NOT from one of their engines (an RB211).

[edit on 12-4-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Mirage... read this:

www.aerospaceweb.org...

This may help you understand what was found and if it matches with that of flight 77.

*sighs* this wont help you. You ignore all evidence. And, where is YOUR link to your witness?

[edit on 12-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Furthermore, CIT now admits doing a faulty investigation

In this exchange at CIT, Craig Ranke concedes CIT never did a complete investigation at the Pentagon and does not know the nature of key evidence:

z3.invisionfree.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Flyover? It's Over

The NoC (north of Citgo) claim that Ranke and CIT claim has not been shown as possible.

"Possible" flight paths have been shown to be an aviation impossibility. Ranke claims that there isn't one, [flight path]nor they ever had one. A member of CIT and founder of PF911 Truth have requested assistance from a member of the Jref Forum and he was unable to find their theory to be at all possible.

Lets say it was possible....

The entire theory of the flyover hinges on their witnesses claim to the NoC.

We have all shown that witness statements are far from reliable. They become even more unreliable as time passes. 5 years after an event is a long time.

Lets keep in mind the MAJORITY of the NoC witnesses also state that they saw the plane impact the pentagon.

We do not know who else Ranke interviewed. We don't know how many witnesses contradicted his other witnesses.

That being said, we have to look at this theory in reality for a second.

Although Ranke and Co. do not have to answer these questions...they need to be brought up to show how ..well...silly this theory is.

1- Why do it? 3 other planes were used. Non of them were replaced with "decoy's"

2- Where did the plane go?

3- Where did the passengers go?

4- DNA Evidence - How did it get there?

5- Plane parts - How were they stored? Craig claims they were locked in storage rooms.

6- Bombs - How were they planted. Ranke states that it would be easy considering construction was going on. No, it's more difficult. MANY civilians were around working the entire time.

7- back to plane parts- How were they placed around the crash areas? Who carried them? Why wasn't anyone seen planting plane parts on the Pentagon Lawn?

8- witnesses to seeing a body strapped in a seat.

9- The generator damage: craig claims it was possible it was placed at an angle prior to 911 for transport. Although trailers were moved, there is ZERO evidence that shows the generator trailer was placed at an angle.

10- Personal belongings: several pieces of victims belonginigs were returned to families.

11- DoubleTree Video... would have shown the flyover

12- Security video... showed something striking the PEntagon

13. Downed light poles. Ranke accuses a somewhat elderly man of working for the government.

14. How were downed light poles planted? No one witness that noticed them prior to flight 77 impact.

15.a highway filled with people not ONE witness to a plane flying over the Pentagon.


Sorry, but these are some basic questions we should all ask before allowing the flyover theory to even be considered.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I think we should all ask "60 Minutes" to interview CIT as "experts" on the "flyover of AA77 over the Pentagon."

I think Craig Ranke needs media exposure to enhance his reputation.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I believe that Craig has refused to present it to main stream media. Correct me if I'm wrong Craig.

Hey, if the proof was as solid as he thinks.... dude would get a Pulitzer!!



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Of course as usual you are 100% wrong.

That is yet another blatant unsupported lie about us that is continuously pushed primarily by jrefer/hardfire host Ron Weik.

We have approached media both alternative and mainstream.

We have approached authorities both federal and local.

We will continue to contact more and more agencies and media outlets and continue to put pressure on them until they listen.

Their inaction is expected and has no bearing on the validity of the evidence.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Thank you for the correction. Thats why i requested it. I will e-mail Ron to ask him why he stated this.

Now, are you planning on telling us what the MSM thought of your theory?

And no worries about you answering any of the questions I posted above. Like i stated, you don't have to.




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Now, are you planning on telling us what the MSM thought of your theory?


As expected most refuse to even look at it let alone respond.

But that won't stop us from continuing to approach them and put pressure.



And no worries about you answering any of the questions I posted above. Like i stated, you don't have to.


You mostly just made a bunch of false statements with some irrelevant questions regarding faith based claims.

Nothing you said addresses or remotely refutes the evidence we present so no it will not be addressed.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Like I said... you don't have to respond.

Thanks for the reply craig.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Hey no problem.

You see I could care less if you or anyone else refuses to accept the flyover theory.

That is unimportant to me.

What's important and what proves 9/11 was an inside job is the evidence we present.

No true critical thinker who actually follows scientific reasoning would suggest that a theory needs to be accepted in order for evidence in support of the theory to be deemed valid.

That is exactly what you and the CIT detractors continually try to do because you can not refute the evidence.

The fact remains...regardless of that "theory" you refuse to accept....the scientifically verified evidence we present proving the plane came from east of the river and flew north of the former citgo gas station proves a military deception beyond a reasonable doubt.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I'd like to add that the OP has been caught in blatant lies.

Particularly in regards to the notion that we misled witnesses.

He even brazenly put up a false link to a quote that doesn't exist when I demanded that he sourced his blatant lie.

None of the witnesses were the least bit misled and there is zero evidence that this is the case.

Of course megaman's lie has already been picked up and referenced by others in this forum showing how the deliberate disinfo that has been allowed to be published in the OP of this thread can have an affect even if though it is completely unsupported.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join