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 skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

posted by SPreston
Most of these people are untraceable and do not exist.

posted by Soloist
And I guess all the rescue workers don't exist either?

Pretty amazing of all the people that were there, that only a dozen or so which just happen to place the plane on the "north side" are the one's you guys claim to exist. And of the others, they are discounted and called "automatically suspect" , how convenient.

So go find them and re-interview them. You can't? How convenient.

As far as verifiable names which can be traced and interviewed?
No they do not exist until you go track them down and verify their accounts. You still can't?


posted by SPreston
Even if a few of these people are real, they were to the south and saw an aircraft to the north and that aircraft was flying over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo and could not possibly have lined up with the official damage path through the light poles and through the Pentagon interior.

posted by Soloist
Wow, assume much do we? That's pretty awesome that you somehow know what they saw, after claiming they don't exist.

Well what else could they have seen looking north since the aircraft has been proven over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo by previously published re-interviewed eyewitnesses and the FAA has just released a video verifying that portion of the flight path? Do you disagree with the FAA video?


posted by SPreston
These supposed eyewitness accounts you wave around are just a bunch of unverifiable mainstream media propaganda sound bytes and print bytes published for their masters.

posted by Soloist
Your anti-government bias is showing, it's *really* hard to take you serious, so I won't.

No. My mainstream media bias is showing through and the treacherous prostitutes deserve every bit of it.




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
So go find them and re-interview them.


Why? I don't have any reason to disbelieve them. What a silly argument and ridiculous statement to make. I'm not the one accusing our Government and some of it's citizens of mass murder.

You simply cannot prove these people do not exist because it doesn't fit into your theory. Sorry, that's not how it works.



Well what else could they have seen looking north since the aircraft has been proven over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo by previously published re-interviewed eyewitnesses and the FAA has just released a video verifying that portion of the flight path? Do you disagree with the FAA video?


Their statements have been made, you cannot disprove them by saying "what else could it be" while making assumptions. Once again, that's not how it works. Most people who are rational thinkers will tell you the same thing.

Sorry.

Stop staring at the little magical sparkly wand.



No. My mainstream media bias is showing through and the treacherous prostitutes deserve every bit of it.


Again, wow, yeah your slant is obvious. Calling people "treacherous prostitutes" and claiming witnesses do not exist, yah no wonder this will never go anywhere. How cute.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


The point is that if you are truly unbiased and interested in truth you will only accept confirmed independent verifiable evidence a means to exonerate the government from involvement

Otherwise you are forced to accept what you are told based on faith.

I support religious freedom so I won't fault you for that.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Soloist
 


The point is that if you are truly unbiased and interested in truth you will only accept confirmed independent verifiable evidence a means to exonerate the government from involvement


Bolding mine for dramatic effect.

What a twisted way of looking at things, yet you claim to be unbiased? Does that sound about right?

We should accept the "confirmed independent verifiable evidence" from "unbiased" conspiracy theorists who hate the government? That doesn't sound like the "truth" to me in any shape or form. No thanks, I'll pass.

Where is the "confirmed independent verifiable evidence" in the forms of interviews of all the rescue workers? What evidence exists to the whereabouts of the plane? The crew? What about the cell phone calls to the family members? Witnesses to the massive plane part "planting"?




Otherwise you are forced to accept what you are told based on faith.
I support religious freedom so I won't fault you for that.


Wrong! Video. Pictures. Cell phone calls. Witness statements. All of which disagree with your theory.

The junk you are selling is belief, without any proof. And I will fault you for that.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
This is merely a thread of desperation to flood this Forum. I'm having no part of this charade except to post the following:

Here's what proves the CIT garbage wrong.....

1. The physical evidence (FDR, flight path damage, wreckage, DNA, etc.)
2. 84th RADES data (Radar Records)
3. Reagan National Radar records
4. Andrews AFB Radar Records
5. ATC Communications Recordings
6. Tribby Video
7. Looney Photographs
8. Aerodynamic Analysis of required flight paths
9. All CIT witnesses (save one) indicated AA77 struck the Pentagon.
9. Common Sense

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Reheat]



Following this thread and still taking in all the info accusations and counter accusations! lol


You may be completely correct and OP completely wrong but I am troubled by the inconsistencies I'm finding and the questions he is raising are valid it would seem.

1. I'm troubled by the 13 witnesses who state the aircraft was on the north side and the implications in regards to the downed light polls.

2. I'm troubled by the reports of 80 ? number could be wrong videos showing the impact and we've only seen 2 so far. Why is that? It's not to ease the suffering of the survivors or the victims families because the twin tower impacts have been shown over and over and over.

These two points trouble me greatly.

any thoughts? More for those who don't believe in a conspiracy.

Thanks! I'm amazing!



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


They just use irrelevant straw man arguments and blanket denial.

The fact is....the north side evidence is completely falsifiable.

All they need to do is present 14 first-hand witness accounts of people who place the plane on the south side and have equal to or better vantage points compared with the 13 north side witnesses we present!

It should be easy schmeezy!

If of course the plane flew on the south side.






pssssssst.......It didn't.


[edit on 14-12-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



new topics

top topics
 
16
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join