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.

 

Air America Pentagon Debate To Feature CIT & PfT! (major breakthrough will be revealed!)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Well I'll keep an open mind however some of the evidence to date has been very controversial and very technical and I find it hard to let the lay person know what it is, so that is an inherent weakness, the testimony should be interesting.




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by TheBobert
 


-363 points.

I think you forgot to put the money where you mouth is, and instead, you've inserted your foot.


Oh man!!!!!!! That sucks!!!!
Gosh!!



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I was listening to the debate, but part "7" had a 404 file not found error when I clicked it. Anyone know where I can get the full debate?



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
I was listening to the debate, but part "7" had a 404 file not found error when I clicked it. Anyone know where I can get the full debate?


Strange how they messed up the most important segment!

The main segment with me and Rob is AAR1 in this download:
pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
What a dissapointment that was.

- CIT got very little airtime and was over shadowed by the Hardfire dude.

- The crackpot Dr.Griffin would not answer any questions. "I gotta go."

- CIT, or PFFFT did not present the corrections to their math to support their flyover theory.

- Witness talked about not one but TWO planes, this contradicts his other witnesses.


I can see AIR America is losing money... a commercial every 30-60 seconds??? WTF?



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
What a dissapointment that was.

- CIT got very little airtime and was over shadowed by the Hardfire dude.


Agreed.

That was a disappointment.



- Witness talked about not one but TWO planes, this contradicts his other witnesses.



Ummm....

He was INSIDE the Pentagon at the moment of the explosion and immediately ran outside on the loading dock 7 steps away which is when he saw the COMMERCIAL AIRLINER extremely low banking away from the building.

He did not see 2 planes.

He believes there were two planes because he was told that AA77 hit the building.

Perhaps you are not up to speed on all the evidence we present but the 2nd Plane Cover Story was critical to this operation and this new flyover witness is a perfect example of why.

We will soon be releasing a new wave of north side witnesses from Arlington National Cemetery as well as all the details about his new flyover witness very soon.

Thanks for paying attention!

[edit on 17-5-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
any questions. "I gotta go."

- CIT, or PFFFT did not present the corrections to their math to support their flyover theory.



thanks for answering all my points.

have a nice day.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
any questions. "I gotta go."

- CIT, or PFFFT did not present the corrections to their math to support their flyover theory.



thanks for answering all my points.

have a nice day.


That is not a question.

Plus it doesn't make any sense.

The calculations that Rob will be correcting are in regards to the official flight path.

The north of citgo flyover is proven by the unanimous eyewitness placement of the plane and of course the new testimony we have reporting the extremely low commercial airliner flying away immediately after the explosion for the ultimate final necessary validation.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
First of all Rob has no intentions of correcting anything. I think it was over two months ago this was pointed out to him.

You can talk about all your witnesses all you want. Come up with a flight path that will actually work to support your witnesses AND that will be physically possible.

you have not done this even though you have been requested to do so on several occasions.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
First of all Rob has no intentions of correcting anything. I think it was over two months ago this was pointed out to him.


There will be a full presentation on the matter released soon.



You can talk about all your witnesses all you want. Come up with a flight path that will actually work to support your witnesses AND that will be physically possible.

you have not done this even though you have been requested to do so on several occasions.


There is nothing physically impossible about a plane flying north of the citgo.

That is a myth that was created based off fabricated values.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig,

Do you have a flight path that fits with your eyewitness statements?

If so, can you please post it here.

Thank you

:TY:



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Can't you read?
He just gave you your answer.

Could you stop the endless repetitions of the same old question, it doesn't add anything new to the discussion and it's getting quite annoying.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Why should he? The question is valid.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Lab,

It is a VERY valid question. Craig knows it. Thats why he avoids it. HE has posted a few "potential" flight paths that were proven impossible.

He and the members of PFFFFFT were asked to submit a flight path, and can not.

IF this flyover fantasy is going to stick, it has to be physically possible.



[edit on 18-5-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Do you realize that ridiculing the website name PfT into PFFFFFT, and using the word fantasy, coupled to the word flyover, does not fit well in our policy of mutual respect at these forums?

And Boone, this indeed valid question asked for two months now repeatedly in several threads, is just answered again, it will be addressed shortly.
Let's have a bit of patience on the subject.

I expect, based on my reading of several other eyewitness accounts, that the testimony of the golf course caddy will turn out to be slightly out of sync with the later observations in the actual flight path.
The caddy's account is the earliest, but also the one causing the path to "wobble" too much.
We'll see what Rob Balsamo comes up with.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


We can't comment on OTHER websites? There was an entire thread dedicated to the JREF website months ago. Nothing was said.

No one is getting attacked. I do recall saying THANK YOU after a very friendly request.

By calling a theory a fantasy is not a bad thing. Craig has yet to complain about it. To me thats what it is.

Their "potential" flight paths that have been presented in the past do NOT work. Rob knows this as does Craig.

LAb...Craig is a big boy and takes his punches well. Although he may appreciate you sticking up for him, I am sure he has no problem speaking for himself.

That being said. I await his flight path that will work with the laws of physics.


[edit on 18-5-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig,

Do you have a flight path that fits with your eyewitness statements?

If so, can you please post it here.

Thank you

:TY:



The plane simply needs to be north of the citgo.

Any flight path works.

It is not physically impossible.


BTW flight paths are not 2D and I can't post a 3D image.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
HE has posted a few "potential" flight paths that were proven impossible.


False.

There is nothing "impossible" about ANY of the flight paths.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
This ESTIMATION is 100% possible:




I'm sure there are many others that would work also.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I hate to see acrimony in these forums, so I want to take this opportunity to appeal to the President to end these sad diplays of man's incivility to man by releasing all of the Pentagon surveillance tapes. That way we will have a clear view of the 757 impacting the building and folding its wings up "like an accordion", in the words of one observer.

Not only that but we will have a clear view on the other side of the building, of the complete lack of a flyover.

Perhaps a petition to the President, including the names of the entire debunkernation will sway that awesome leader to deliver us from our irritation.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by ipsedixit]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join