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's (latest) Theory Pulverized

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Please elaborate on Silverstein.
Do you agree with the CIT that DNA was planted at the Pentagon?




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by TheBobert
 



Hmm. You claim that CIT's investigation was tainted because they started with a theory.

I didnt say that please reread and try agaon.



Yet, you want me to prove that all the others weren't because they started with a theory?

All of the evidence points to the hijackers.
CIT claims to have evidence to the contrary and has promised trials and grand juries BUT so far NOTHING.




The hypocrisy of you people is almost funny if it weren't for everything that has happened on and after 9/11.

Please elaborate on how I am being a hypocrite?
I cannot and do not speak for anyone else so you can drop the "you people"




Try and see things from both sides of the fence. It actually opens your eyes to the hypocrisy used by the likes of you.

LOL "the likes of you", very very dramatic.
Ok great both sides of the fense.
Lets cut to the chase.,
Got proof of government involvement in 9-11?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
Please elaborate on Silverstein.


Look into Silverstein's bid for his billions and Weidlinger Associates.


Do you agree with the CIT that DNA was planted at the Pentagon?


What does this have to do with me pointing out the hypocrisy of the so called "skeptics"?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by TheBobert
 



Hmm. You claim that CIT's investigation was tainted because they started with a theory.

I didnt say that please reread and try agaon.


What?


Originally posted by TheBobert
Craig began his "investigation" with the belief that 9-11 was an inside job.
This alone taints his entire "investigation".




Please elaborate on how I am being a hypocrite?


You said that Craig's investigation was automatically tainted because he had a theory to begin with. But, then put all your eggs into the government reports when they too had a theory to begin with.


I cannot and do not speak for anyone else so you can drop the "you people"


Sucks when we turn your tactics around on you eh?




Lets cut to the chase.,
Got proof of government involvement in 9-11?


Let's cut to even more of the chase. Show me where I said they did.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Why dont you tell me about Silverstein instead of telling me to look.
Can you provide a link?
Investigators do not try and prove a negative.
They set out to prove who did not who didnt.
I believe that they conducted a thorough investigation.
Do you believe that the US government had something to do with 9-11 because that seems to contradict what you previously posted



As I've said numerous times, I'm probably more on the skeptic's side of things than the truther's. I don't believe it was an inside job


You then turn around and seem to imply that the government investigatoins started off with negative intentions



The 9/11 Commission, FEMA, NIST, ASCE, Silverstein reports were "investigated" with the belief that "9/11 was not an inside job". Does this also taint their "investigations"?

What do you mean by this?
Craig started off with the belief that 9-11 wsa an inside job and had elaborate ideas such as flight 77 being remote piloted, passengers either being executed by the government (shot is the term he used) or gassed while on the plane.
Are you saying that the investigators into 9-11 were somehow tainted to believe that terrorist did it?
So if that is the case then does that mean that they made up and planted evidence to support that?


[edit on 13-6-2008 by TheBobert]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
Why dont you tell me about Silverstein instead of telling me to look.
Can you provide a link?


Actually, I can't find a link to their report. But, I have been hearing from the "debunkers" of this report for years. Maybe it doesn't exist?



You then turn around and seem to imply that the government investigatoins started off with negative intentions


Why does saying that the government started out with a theory equal "negative" intentions?




The 9/11 Commission, FEMA, NIST, ASCE, Silverstein reports were "investigated" with the belief that "9/11 was not an inside job". Does this also taint their "investigations"?

What do you mean by this?


Just saying that you accuse Craig of being biased from the start. Which could also be said of the government bodies. Since they too started with a theory. I have said nothing about it being negative. You have.


So if that is the case then does that mean that they made up and planted evidence to support that?


Does your accusation of Craig beginning with a theory mean that they planted and/or made up evidence to support it?

[edit on 6/13/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Wow, I really hate 9/11 threads, and try to stay out of them for the most part. Reason being that nobody can prove anything. At least not yet. They always boil down to he-said/she-said, and further devolve into bickering and insults.

Now my thoughts on this.

First, I have to commend Craig for all of his work. I think what a lot of people forget is WHY he's done this. Nobody, and I mean nobody can dispute that the official story of that day has holes just as big as any other theory out there. Craig has just taken more action in light of this than most.

I think where most Truthers go wrong, is in trying to figure out what happened that day. We can't. All we know is that we haven't been told the truth. However, trying to get someone to tell the truth, is to date, an exercise in futility. So what's left? You got it... try to figure it out ourselves. Only that brings fire and brimstone from above, as this thread is a clear indication of.

I won't pretend to know what happened, and how it went down, but I do know I've been lied to about it. Props to Craig for searching for the truth. Correct or not, he's much more of a patriot than most of the debunkers in this thread. They hold any CT about this topic to stringent standards, I'd appreciate the same standards from them. There's just as many holes in the official story as there are in Craigs, so why not address some of those?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Just saying that you accuse Craig of being biased from the start.



Griif, he used to work with the CIT.

So I think he's qualified to know what Craig thinks about the subject.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

Reason being that nobody can prove anything. At least not yet. They always boil down to he-said/she-said, and further devolve into bickering and insults.



The real problem is that the CIT guys are proposing flight paths that are in no way possible for an airliner to execute.

There's no he said/she said in that. If ANY flight path proposed by CIT is impossible, eyewitness testimony that gives them credence HAS to be discredited. Of course this absolutely doesn;t mean that they're lying. Merely that they're in error and the testimony should be thrown out. Additionally, remember that some of their witnesses that support the NoC theory also have stated unequivicably (sp?) that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Which of course is also in direct contradiction to their flyover theory.

Anyways, it's not he said/she said on many levels.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   


Just saying that you accuse Craig of being biased from the start. Which could also be said of the government bodies.


From personal contact with Craig I know that he went into this with the belief that the government was behind 9-11.
IMHO he then created this elaborate story based on his beliefs.
Are you saying that the government officials began their investigation with the belief that terrorists did this?
Do you believe 9-11 was an inside job?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Can't you just draw a line from the Entrance hole, to the Exit hole, and that will give you the general direction the jet came from, which means all of you are incorrect?






[edit on 13-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


And a simple visual inspection of the impact site is in direct contradiction with the idea that a 757 is what struck the building at all. This is the point I'm trying to make, to both sides of the argument. We can go round and round until we're old and (more) bitter. The entire situation needs a disclaimer that reads "whistleblower required for use... not included".

there are plenty of questions, that don't need math, physics or even a 5th grade education to be answered, yet we focus on the most intricate details. This, in my opinion, shifts the focus from where it should be, which is on the simple questions that we don't have answers for. For instance, the plane, apparently struck with enough energy to "vaporize" most of itself. The official account states that the wings were folded back, and followed the fuselage into the impact hole. Yet, the wings didn't even leave a mark on the walls on either side of the hole. Hell, the window panes on either side of the impact weren't even cracked. Now the techies can get in on that, and determine, based on the weight of the craft, how much energy is required to obliterate that much material into nothingness. How fast would the impact have to occur at to produce that much energy? Does that speed corroborate FDR data? Does it corroborate the depth of penetration? Hell, how hard to you have to smack the wall with a 12 pound sledge hammer to leave a mark?

People have asked these type of questions before, over and over again. And over and over again, they go ignored, by both the official story tellers, and the alternate theory debunkers. So who can blame a guy like Craig for attempting to put the pieces together. As far as I'm concerned, he could come up with a scenario that works with the math, the physics, the timing, the witnesses, and everything else, and the same people would blast it would "pulverize" it just as much.

Kind of reminds me of another theory that was "pulverized" again and again. Some loon said the earth was round, not flat.... or something like that.

[edit on 6/13/2008 by Unit541]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541 So who can blame a guy like Craig for attempting to put the pieces together. As far as I'm concerned, he could come up with a scenario that works with the math, the physics, the timing, the witnesses, and everything else, and the same people would blast it would "pulverize" it just as much.


People "blame" Ranke because he has little, if any, credibility. From the start all he has done is present "evidence" that he claims supports his theories, and claims all other witnesses and evidence who don't support his theories are part of the conspiracy.

Here's an example from his latest video:


"So not only is their position with USA Today, and they were in this convenient location to report on and see the event dubious, but the fact that so many of these small concentrations happened to also be 2nd plane witnesses.

So this is a convenient situation as well. They happened to perpetuate the story that there was another plane. They don't all say that the plane was shadowing but the fact that they even mentioned the 2nd plane at all helped reinforce the fact that there was another plane in the area and ambiguously acted as cover for the flyover. So this implicates them. It absolutely does. "-from Ranke video


As you can see, Ranke claims being employed by USA Today and seeing an airplane on 9/11 is enough to implicate somebody in a conspiracy to kill hundreds of people. This is an example of why Ranke has little credibility.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


Actually, the math involved turns this argument into the most simple of propositions. Either the NoC theory(s) are possible possible, or they aren’t.

Guess what?

They aren’t.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
AllIsOne, wait a sec - how do you know that's the exit hole? I've added a blue arrow to your pic. How do we know this isn't the exit hole? It has a much larger area of burn scarring on the building face than the hole you pointed out, and it would also change the direction the flight came (the blue line I added).





posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Because you can type "pentagon exit hole" in Google and see the 1000's of images of it.

Here is another:
home.comcast.net...

I think I heard the other hole was created by firefighters to make a path.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
So are you saying thebobert is aldo?? Please explain what happened??



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
It would help to count the rings before you draw a line between entry and exit hole ..C D E... 3 rings!

anyway I wanted to throw in something else:

that's a likely flight path:


Not all of the whitness accounts can be fullfilled.

The arguments of the "Reheat" are wrong in connection with a S-shaped radial flight path that was clearly not observed.

However his table is usable because it shows one thing for sure: The turn radius has to be as large as possible in order that the path could have been flown.

This only leads to two possible solution:
1) At least one of the whitnesses is wrong.
2) There were indeed 2 planes in play

Most think 2 cant be forwhat ever reason (i am not up to day why it cant)..I think it could whereas the second flew toward the south of the pentagon.. but that's just a guess idea because of an anomaly i saw in the pentagon videos.
So if we say there was only one plane then at least one whitness has told a lie because the turn of the plane becomes too sharp (extrem banking required).

If we forexample say the two police officers told a lie (they were really not convincing to me) you can find a solution. The solution of the picture. That path can be flown and that path fullfills best what was reported by the whitnesses in my opinion.



[edit on 13-6-2008 by g210b]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


Wow, first you complain about he said/she said, and then you jump right into the deep end of that very pool.

Look, forget about the he said/she said, because like you said, we could go on forever.

The physical reality that the airliners simply are not capable of CIT's flyover/turns means that it is "pulverized". No he said/she said is needed to show that.

As for the other theories go, the he said/she said comes into play again, but this thread is ONLY about CIT's theories. And they're not necessary here.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


No I used to work with Craig.
I am not Aldo thank god.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join