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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBobert
 


So you are a former member of CIT???? Former truther turned debunker??




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
Are you saying that the government officials began their investigation with the belief that terrorists did this?


Are you not? Who else would they think did it? Their mothers?

Or do you mean the terrorists we were told did it within a few hours of it happening? From evidence found that is suspect at best? Like a passport that just finds it's way into a police officer's hand while total chaos is happening all around? I'm not saying the policeman is suspect, but the man in a suit who just happened to give it to the policeman is suspect. I won't go into all the dubious (IMO) "evidence" but, I'm sure you know of most of it?


Do you believe 9-11 was an inside job?


Why do you keep asking me this?

For the last time. I don't know if it was an "inside job" or not. I don't like that "inside job" anyway. If it was done by a part of our government, I don't believe that everyone was involved. Only an idiot would think that. No offense to anyone who thinks all government employees are evil.

But, it wouldn't be the first time our agencies were infiltrated by double agents.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
reply to post by TheBobert
 


So you are a former member of CIT???? Former truther turned debunker??



No I mean that Craig and I used to work at the same company.
CIT is not a company or a job it is Craig and Aldo's club.
They might have treefort but CIT is nothing more then a name and 2 people.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Griff,
At least other truthers on this board admit they are truthers.
I like how you act as though you are not.
So you think that the officer who found that passport was what a NWO plant?
Was the passport planted?
There was plenty of debris that day and it is called chance that the passport was found.
That does not at all prove an inside job.
You say you are more of a skeptic yet even the slightest thing will make you believe an inside job.
I dont think that you are being very honest.
You also brought up Silverstein but still have not posted a link to whatever it is that you claim.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

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.



OMG... where have you guys been??? This is so obvious, and it will make EVERY piece of evidence fit!

One of the planes was actually a hologram! The hologram plane wouldn't be constrained by the physical limitations of a real plane. Therefore, CIT's theory can be explained by the flyover plane being a hologram.

This also explains why nobody saw the plane emerge on the other side. They simply turned the hologram off.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

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.



OMG... where have you guys been??? This is so obvious, and it will make EVERY piece of evidence fit!

One of the planes was actually a hologram! The hologram plane wouldn't be constrained by the physical limitations of a real plane. Therefore, CIT's theory can be explained by the flyover plane being a hologram.

This also explains why nobody saw the plane emerge on the other side. They simply turned the hologram off.

Lol, I hope you are kidding. There was no Inside job, two planes hit the twin towers another hit the pentagon. Oh and also one plane crashed in penn. AND I SAY CRASHED. If there is any cover up, which I dont believe there is, it is that some people in the government know it was a possibilty there would be an attack on that horrible day and ignored it.



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

Originally posted by TheBobert
Griff,
At least other truthers on this board admit they are truthers.


I admit I am looking for truth. Yes. That's a far cry from screaming "Inside Job". Is it not?


I like how you act as though you are not.


I like how you think you know what I feel.


So you think that the officer who found that passport was what a NWO plant?


First, the officer did not...I repeat...did not find the passport. It was given to him by a "passerby". When everyone else was running for their lives, this undisclosed person just happens to find the key evidence that puts it all together.

Yeah, I'm going to be running for my life but happen to glance down among thousands of pounds of debris and find the one key clue that points to these hijackers.

Not even having to mention the amazing feat of surviving the crash to begin with. Odds keep adding up here.


Was the passport planted?


I suspect yes, but we'll never know. Now won't we?


There was plenty of debris that day and it is called chance that the passport was found.


And the chance is astronomical.


That does not at all prove an inside job.


No, but in my opinion it proves that someone had the opportunity.


You say you are more of a skeptic yet even the slightest thing will make you believe an inside job.


Again. Putting words in my mouth? Typical.


I dont think that you are being very honest.


Nor I you.


You also brought up Silverstein but still have not posted a link to whatever it is that you claim.


What claim would that be? That they started with a theory?

[edit on 6/13/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Oooooooh man Griff you got me buddy 9-11 was an inside job.
You win.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
There was plenty of debris that day and it is called chance that the passport was found.
That does not at all prove an inside job.

Have you actually seen any photos or video footage of the scene?

Everything was covered with brownish-gray, lung-choking grimy dust. The chance that a passer-by just happened to notice a brownish-gray, grimy dust-covered passport and pick it up is 0%. That's right, 0%.


Originally posted by TheBobert
You also brought up Silverstein but still have not posted a link to whatever it is that you claim.

What do you want to know about Silverstein? His "pull it" quote is well known and the rest is pretty cut-and-dry:




Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds', that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

We have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments.

Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Anyway, I notice we are four pages into the thread and I have seen a lot of name calling, finger pointing and deflection. Strangely, not one bit of math to counter the universal language of truth, presented here.

Since the truth club is well represented in this thread and I see four pages and counting of argumentative technique (special thanks to the poster who tried to dismiss the math due to the title I used – another priceless truth comedy sketch) but, not one scintilla of math that proves (or even suggests) the flight paths that must exist according to CITs OWN witness testimony are even in the realm of possibility.

Again, this is CITs witnesses, unchallenged as to the veracity of their claims. These are the witnesses CIT has claimed on various radio programs, in the public domain, as “proving” their theory. All we skeptics have done is use their testimony, as verified by CIT and promoted as 100% accurate and applied the undeniable truth of math to the story.

Their witnesses. Their claim of proof. In their own words, as they remember it. Proven (not suggested), proven through math as impossibilities. Does CIT admit the truth in the math? Of course not, they throw their own witnesses under the bus and deflect the argument.

So, those in the truth club who are in attendance in this thread: do you recognize the universal truth of math? Or, are you going to continue down the path of rehashing old, worn out arguments from six years ago? Are you interested in the truth, or are you interested in an agenda?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


He's completely kidding but here's the scary part: truthers have claimed hologram planes as a real (I'm not kidding), explanation to various facts (like math) they can't slither around.

There is no limit to how far they are willing to go to provide "rebuttals" to things like math, context, complete statements and a healthy dose of actually knowing what your talking about.

The club is full-on nutter. I don’t mean that as a slam, I mean that as an honest assessment.

There is a real psychological phenomena here. When confronted with hard, cold reality in the form of real proof......say something like math do they reevaluate their position(s)? Do they eliminate the truly bizarre, circus-freak-show kind of claims (see holograms)? Do they, for their own credibility, agree on the obvious?

No.

They simply go further down the rabbit hole. It's a vicious cycle, and ultimately very sad.

Think about where the discussion (generally) has dissolved to. There are people who are earnestly discussing focused sun beams and orbital partial beam weapons as being the cause of destruction on 9-11.

When confronted with real science, real facts and little niggles like math they simply weave an even grander fantasy, become even more fringe and I mean this honestly - even further from any hope of staying attached to reality.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Ahh, the math!!!

Math is a good thing. And a great way to ponder 9-11 events.
In math, zero is 'something'. As a number it means the absense of anything and that too is 'something'.

Well on 9-11, zero pictures were made showing planes in Shanksville and at the Penta-Con. And zero pictures were made on 9-11 at the WTC's showing airplane wreckage AFTER the famous 'impacts' into the twin towers. And, please let's not bring up the images of the rusty wheelwel (not taken on 9-11)l, the lonely crumpled engine core (wrong model) and the galvalume (building) sheetmetal pile on the rooftop with the dude wearing a respirator and overalls.

So, therefore those truthers who claim hologram planes as 'real' must be -- by definition -- much closer to the 'truth' than those which insist on the presence of real aircraft. Because at least they understand the mathematical concept of 'zero'. Holographic imagery, no matter how seemingly far-fetched, at least doesn't violate physical principles the way the complete disappearance of (four) 300,000 lbs Boeings does.

And, where the cause of the destruction of the WTC complex is concerned, it's all a matter of energy. No conventional energy source could have been theoretically possible to turn WTC-1, 2, 6 and 7 into dust. Only nuclear reactions release the necessary power amounts to produce the observed effects -- the structures turning into gaseous powder clouds and then wafting over Manhattan. Hence the suggestion that hydrogen bombs were used.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
well nothing new here from the truthers posting here.
The same tired old arguments that have been debunked time and time again.
I cant believe we are recycling Silverstein and the "pull it" comment.
Man that has been debunked and debunked and debunked.
The desperation is showing.
And because a passport was found proves NOTHING!
That is not evidence of an inside job BUZZZZZZZZ try again
And of course we have a made up chance of 0% that a passport would be found.
What is that based on?
It is based on believing a fantasy.
7 years and not 1 shred of evidence to prompt anyone outside of the truther club to look again at 9-11.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
Oooooooh man Griff you got me buddy 9-11 was an inside job.
You win.


No wonder Craig stopped working with you. You remind me of the guy who stands in front of the newstand outside my building and argues with the magazine covers all day long. I.E. You're delusional.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I thought there was an EC-10 following the pentagon crash. Could this be what some of the witnesses saw?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
well nothing new here from the truthers posting here.
The same tired old arguments that have been debunked time and time again.


No, this is incorrect.

There IS something very new. Now CIT claims that working for USA Today and seeing a 2nd plane are both proof of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

What's new is the level of serious debate has sunken even lower.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by TheBobert
Oooooooh man Griff you got me buddy 9-11 was an inside job.
You win.


No wonder Craig stopped working with you. You remind me of the guy who stands in front of the newstand outside my building and argues with the magazine covers all day long. I.E. You're delusional.

YOU HAVE NOTHING.
No evidence.
No proof.
You have speculation.
You bring up Larry Silverstein yet you cant provide a link.
You say you are a skeptic but based on what you have posted that is a lie.
I dont care which one you are but pretty pathetic that you are a truther and lying and saying you are a skeptic.
Time to go out in the real world and bring your evidence to the proper authorities.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
There IS something very new. Now CIT claims that working for USA Today and seeing a 2nd plane are both proof of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.


I'm not defending CIT in anyway but please remember that there WAS a second plane following the pentagon plane. BTW, it was a C-130...not EC-10.


Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it. [New York Times, 10/16/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001] Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside (see 10:08 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/2001; Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, claims he took off around 9:30 a.m., planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He later describes his close encounter: “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.”


www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=dayOf911&startpos=300

There was a plane following a plane. Has anyone considered maybe this is why people are confused?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by TheBobert
well nothing new here from the truthers posting here.
The same tired old arguments that have been debunked time and time again.


No, this is incorrect.

There IS something very new. Now CIT claims that working for USA Today and seeing a 2nd plane are both proof of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
What's new is the level of serious debate has sunken even lower.

I agree but sadly the only people listening to and caring about their fantasies are internet forums.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join