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.

 

C-130 video & photos disprove 84th RADES data while corroborating witnesses & pilot

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Guess it will just have to remain as comedy relief on life support


Um, you mean the official media story?

I mean since it has been proven to have reasonable doubt.




posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat
 


People here see through your bullying tactics.


Well now, I'm disappointed, but not surprised that you view FACTS and EXPOSURE of DECEPTIVE video and photograph analysis as bullying tactics.

More FACTS were presented in perfect correlation with ALL of the HARD EVIDENCE in hand than you have in your little lunch bag. RADES data, ATC Summary Transcripts, DCA Radar Records, Andrews AFB Radar Records, L/C O'Briens statements, Tribby Video, and Looney Photographs ALL refute your delusions. And you have a few mutually exclusive witness interviews 7 years after the fact. I guess it's just too much for you to deal with as you haven't refuted any of THE FACTS with substance, but merely resort to a thinly disguised Ad Hominem directed toward me.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Retired guys should find regular hobbies like fishing and stuff.


Wanna be ignorant "Internet sleuths" should find some other venue to expose their paranoid delusions and stuff. Like maybe at an asylum entertainment center for "show and tell".


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This thread is NOT going away nor do we want it to.


Good! It's great to show how you can't detail how your fantasy flight paths join with the hard evidence. They don't and you're not able to show that they do. Therefore, your entire effort here is a colossal failure. So, I agree it's good publicity for your failure.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Wrong departure.

The departure used by the C-130 was built to fly at 3000 feet over arrivals and departures from KDCA. This is a fact. And the heading was 270 degrees. No one is allowed to fly next the to Mall. South of the Mall, this is the only departure that is south of the Mall. The other departure is past the Mall to the north, and a 270 degree heading is not allowed until past the DC area. The actual flight plan for the C-130 is not north of DC.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I have a question for anyone who has posted in this thread or anyone who gave the OP one of those "gold stars" for the original post.

Do you folks condone intentional lies?

While I have been accused of lying in this thread by the OP (it is a standard MO), he just states it as fact without showing let alone, proving it is true.

On the other hand, the OP has LIED at least 4 times in this thread and it's proven. The first lie is the graphic/photo analysis of the Tribby Video. I outlined exactly why it was a deceptive graphic/photo combination that should be plain to the most casual observer. Yet, later in the thread he again refers to that graphic/photo as accurate. I can understand someone making a mistake (although it appears to be intentional), but after it's shown to be in gross error to refer to it again as accurate is a blatant and intentional lie.

The second exposed lie is the intentional misinterpretation of the statements of Joel Sucherman. Another poster showed precisely how Sucherman's statement of where and when he saw the C-130 has been twisted. This has been shown multiple times in other Forums, so the error is not new to the OP. On the OP's own site the same posted showed how Sucherman's position was in error due to misidentified landmarks and the OP finally admitted it after multiple pages of bickering. It has still not been corrected in any of the CIT material that I have seen. Sucherman's has been falsely discredited by CIT due to blatant lies that have been shown on multiple occasions.

The third lie is the analysis of the Looney Photographs. Camera view and angle have been manipulated, but still don't show what the OP says they show. It has been explained so that a kid could easily understand, but the OP continues to insist they show what he wants them to show.

The fourth lie is that the video and photographs support the MorningSide One Departure from Andrews AFB. The OP himself states multiple times that the video and photographs DO NOT show the approach, but he then boldly states that these photographs show a departure that occurred some 10 minutes earlier miles to the East of where the pictures were taken. If anything they show the Morningside One Departure from Andrews was not used simply because the flight path DOESN'T FIT with what is shown in the video and photographs.

I presume that most who gave the OP those "gold stars" are members of the "Truth Movement". So, back to my question, is intentional lying OK?

[edit on 5-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Do you folks condone intentional lies?


Thats funny coming from someone who does nothing but quote media lies.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Reheat
Do you folks condone intentional lies?


Thats funny coming from someone who does nothing but quote media lies.

Show me the proof you have that those quotes are media lies. Be mature and adult enough to back up what you are saying.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Your support by illustrating CIT's absurd claims is appreciated.


Thats funny since the eyewitness accont contridicts the RADES data that states the C-130 was on a normal course.

In case you cannot read the witness stated the C-130 was on an odd course not where a normal plane flies.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
Your support by illustrating CIT's absurd claims is appreciated.


Thats funny since the eyewitness accont contridicts the RADES data that states the C-130 was on a normal course.

In case you cannot read the witness stated the C-130 was on an odd course not where a normal plane flies.

Ultima1,

You are now deliberately lying.

Please refrain from being so immature. Grow up and act like the adult you allegedly are.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
You are now deliberately lying.


Now i am going to have to call in the mods for your actions.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
You are now deliberately lying.


Now i am going to have to call in the mods for your actions.

Go ahead and I will happily explain to them exactly how you are lying.

You might want to start going back and editing your posts because I guarantee it's an open and shut case.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
You might want to start going back and editing your posts because I guarantee it's an open and shut case.


Sorry i do not edit post like others do.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
You might want to start going back and editing your posts because I guarantee it's an open and shut case.


Sorry i do not edit post like others do.


That is quite obvious by your spelling and grammer. Which is the main reason people edit their posts.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
That is quite obvious by your spelling and grammer. Which is the main reason people edit their posts.


Actually the main reason people like you go back and edit post is when they are proven wrong.'

I mean i have posted facts and evidence that shows reasonable doubt in the official story, the same official story you believe in even though all the evindece had not been released.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Reading the constant pointless back-and-forth bicker is enough to cause a headache. I've seen not a shred of an attempt from the skeptics/debunkers to go and prove with laid-out evidence the OP - the offer to contact via PM and so on was there, but not taken. Some have laid out some attempted refutes along the lines of departure procedure / general flight paths, but the thing is that this being a supposed government controlled conspiracy - they don't need to follow any such procedures.

That being said, I can't see the OP or some of the followers helping matters with some of their own replies being just as bickering or whatnot in reply. I thought this site was about finding truth and so on? Surely this can be done without heckling at a grade-school level - you know, no personal attacks or insults, just plainly and politely worded, -hunts- for evidence. Not just a 'meh, you're wrong', but posts that actually contribute. It's otherwise all a ridiculous mess.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by theruhe
the offer to contact via PM and so on was there, but not taken.


Do you really think believers are going to try to contact people?

I mean they still believe the official story that has been proven to have reaonable doubt.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by theruhe
Reading the constant pointless back-and-forth bicker is enough to cause a headache. I've seen not a shred of an attempt from the skeptics/debunkers to go and prove with laid-out evidence the OP


There is no question that there is a lot of noise in this thread.

That said, this is a typical "truther" analysis. Read the posts you agree with and either ignore or call the remainder "disinfo. BTW, you are confused because the skeptics/debunkers have made no attempt to prove the OP because the skeptics/debunkers DO NOT AGREE with the OP and have indeed proven it FALSE.

The OP's premise is that the video and photos disprove the 84th RADES data and corroborate the rest.

I guess you overlooked/ignored the posts that PROVE the OP is LYING about the video and photograph analysis. As a result your feeble attempt to divert attention to a specific Departure Procedure or imply that the C-130 was in on the conspiracy are totally and utterly irrelevant.

Both the video and the photographs DO, IN FACT, verify the 84th RADES Data in the vicinity of the Pentagon and as a result nullify all of the rest of the CIT garbage. If you can't see this with the evidence presented then you need new glasses.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
From missinglinks web page:

"Now you will discover the definitive truth about 9/11 and learn why even the most popular movies on the subject have failed to address the evidence exhaustively presented in this video. The facts will make it abundantly clear that the so-called 9/11 “Truth” movement has been infiltrated and is ultimately controlled by the same criminals group who masterminded the attacks. As they say, 'if you want to control the dissent you lead the dissent.' Utilizing evidence from the FBI, CIA, NSA, US Armed Forces Intelligence sectors, Foreign Intelligence organizations, local law enforcement agencies and independent investigators, Missing Links goes where no other 9/11 video has dared to."

See the video:

www.911missinglinks.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
That said, this is a typical "truther" analysis. Read the posts you agree with and either ignore or call the remainder "disinfo.


Thats so funny coming from someone who believes the official story with no real evidence to support it.

And who ignores facts and evidence that questions the official story.


[edit on 7-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Reheat
That said, this is a typical "truther" analysis. Read the posts you agree with and either ignore or call the remainder "disinfo.


Thats so funny coming from someone who believes the official story with no real evidence to support it.

And who ignores facts and evidence that questions the official story.


[edit on 7-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Thought you didnt edit posts



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
Thought you didnt edit posts


Only if i think of something to add.

I do not go back and delets post like others have.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join