CIT skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 10:31 AM by justamomma
Originally posted by almighty bobWell, if you really want to disprove CIT, emotive rhetoric is not the way. I don't see the theory breaking down, but I see more and more attacks on CIT than on the evidence. I have no bias or vested interest either way, this is just how I see it. In fairness, CIT posters have also been belittling in some responses too. Not a valid stance from either side. Not scientific.

But from my viewpoint, the witnesses still stand as valid and credible evidence to a conspiracy, in which case you are doing the people who died a greater disservice by attacking any investigation with anything but valid and credible evidence. Not with emotive rhetoric or cheap insults.


I agree with what you have said as far as emotive rhetoric and cheap insults, but I choose it anyway (hell, at least I am honest) because I have watched a lot of these dudes disprove his theory more than once and they have done it better than I ever could. What is left but to shame him away from this silly crusade he is on?

I don't know if I believe you when you say you have no vested interest either way.. I don't know you and do find it odd that you wouldn't be able to look at the evidence and clearly see this theory is nothing but a pile of dung, so it leaves the question in my head why, a seemingly intelligent person would even consider it.

Cheap insults honestly seem to be something Craig understands as I have seen him do it not only on this board, but across the 'net, so down to his level we must go until he either admits the error of his ways or he, at the very least, quits disrespecting the memory of the victims, including the victims who died in the plane that hit the pentagon.

Rationality has been used and yet he still is trying to make movies, is he not? STill trying to be recognized for his work, is he not? and tell me what good he has actually done other than turning more ppl against all truthers and making a mockery of the events that happened that day? Has he taken his so called hardcore evidence to court yet to help America against their evil gov't?? hmmmm


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 10:31 AM by thefreepatriot
Originally posted by fleabit
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by Reheat


reheat.. looks like you are getting pretty desparate.. why are you so keen on disproving this? If its bull.. then why spend so much time on it?..I just love federal conspiracy theorist's...they can be shown that the world is round and they will say it is flat

[edit on 30-9-2008 by thefreepatriot]


I would guess perhaps for the same reason I do. Because while some folks think it is their moral imperative to prove there was some massive coverup agenda, I feel it's also my duty to dissuade people from accusing my government of mass-murder. Perhaps this doesn't seem important to you, but it does seem important to me. Because you are not just accusing our goverment of murder, you are accusing those who bravely tried to do their duties that day, of being accomplices of same. And while some may think it's important to prove our government is a body of people willing to commit the most evil acts for their own agendas, to preserve the memories and bring justice to those who died, and bring our goverment to justice, I feel the same... that it's important to honor those who did their duties that day amidst all that loss, without claiming they were all part of a grand conspiracy, and that they are no better than murderers themselves.



First of all it is my moral duty to speak the truth.. and find the truth.. period... and 2nd of all first responders who are being thrown to the side have nothing to do with this... and 3rd of all those who are trying to stop us from getting to the truth are no better then the murderers themselves.. like you. I am sure the victims are looking down at you in disgust..

[edit on 30-9-2008 by thefreepatriot]


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 10:51 AM by thefreepatriot
reply to post by justamomma


.... ... they are saying it is inconsistent with debris from a 757. which would mean that a 757 did not hit the pentagon.. I suppose you can't fathom that type of logic because you believe everything the government says.... And seriously what's the point of speaking to fleabit on ats when hes probably in the same office as you... I am sure you can answer\ask him that question directly..

[edit on 30-9-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 30-9-2008 by thefreepatriot]


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 10:57 AM by justamomma
Originally posted by thefreepatriot.... ... they are saying it is inconsistent with debris from a 757. which would mean that a 757 did not hit the pentagon.. I suppose you can't fathom that type of logic because you believe everything the government says.... And seriously what the point of speaking to fleabit on ats when hes probably in the same office as you... I am sure you can answer\ask him that question directly..


He is actually on the other side of the building and I didn't feel like walking down that far.

And you question my logic? Not everyone is out to get ya, you know. Just because a 757 DID ACTUALLY HIT the pentagon doesn't mean there still isn't a conspiracy here to keep you busy. If you would quit questioning the WRONG things, you could figure out the questions to the RIGHT things.

[snip]

EDITED TO ADD: The evidence obviously points to the facts of that day. I am not saying that there aren't questions there, but these are the wrong questions. I am done posting in this thread. I agree w/ reheat in that is most likely stroking the ego of the one person's ego I don't want to be stroking. Ever since you brought in the gov't agent aspect, it has gotten even sillier than it already was. Have fun in your overly active paranoia state and keep looking over your shoulder. Doing drugs really is a reason to be paranoid




Mod Edit - removed insult.
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 30-9-2008 by elevatedone]

edited to add: was just trying to help the dude keep his remaining braincells

[edit on 30-9-2008 by justamomma]


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 11:00 AM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by fleabit
Since reading several paragraphs is apparently a challange to you, we'll start simple:

How did the wreckage get on the lawn? Even the small bits. When was it put there?


This was already answered on page two of this thread in this post.

But here it is again for the record:

There is no evidence of any of the very few parts out on the lawn as having weighed "thousands" of pounds.

In fact here is the extent of the somewhat distinguishable significant sized pieces found outside:


Now here are some FACTS......

We know that shortly after first responders arrived everyone (INCLUDING the first responders) was frantically evacuated for fears of another plane crashing.



Frankly I think there were few enough pieces outside that they could have been easily planted just before the event but they could have VERY easily pulled it off during this evacuation as well.

Either way it's no big deal for them to pull off.

A better question is why there were so few significant sized pieces to begin with!

Now inside the Pentagon is a whole other story because most of the images were NEVER officially released as some mysterious civilian named "Sarah Roberts" first released them on rense.com.

Yep....a conspiracy site that the state department website has the gall to link to as a source for the images!



So most of these images really could have been taken anywhere for all we know.

However, I believe they were really taken in the Pentagon.

Here's another FACT for you....

The damaged portion of the building had been under renovation for years.

It was scheduled to be complete on the week of 9/11.

This is why there were relatively few deaths when there would have been potentially thousands if any other portion of the building was "hit".

However this also gave them the opportunity to plant whatever they wanted in some secure unoccupied newly constructed room.

So the landing gear or any of the somewhat large pieces could have been easily planted inside weeks or months prior to the event.

Or simply placed there after for a photo op.

Because here's another FACT.......

NONE of these parts have been positively identified to "AA77" or tail #N644AA.


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 11:03 AM by fleabit
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by justamomma


.... ... they are saying it is inconsistent with debris from a 757. which would mean that a 757 did not hit the pentagon.. I suppose you can't fathom that type of logic because you believe everything the government says.... And seriously what's the point of speaking to fleabit on ats when hes probably in the same office as you... I am sure you can answer\ask him that question directly..

[edit on 30-9-2008 by thefreepatriot]

That wasn't the question. The question was: Who planted THE wreckage on the lawn. Plane parts, bits of a lawnmower, I don't care what sort of parts they were, I'd like to know how they ended up strewn across the lawn of the Pengaton. If a plane did not crash as you purport, then you must have some theory on how the wreckage that did end up on the lawn got there. How did this happen?

[edit on 30-9-2008 by thefreepatriot]



reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 11:15 AM by fleabit
Craig, you honestly believe that no one would have noticed people strewing wreckage across the lawn prior to the crash? I don't believe for a moment it would have been "simple enough" to carry out. If one thing people are, it's observant of things that are out of the ordinary. For example, even in my much less populated building where I work, I KNOW someone would notice and mention something about people placing bits of metal (some of them fairly sizable), across the grass. I don't believe for a moment no one outside or looking out a window, would have not noticed this. It's a very clean, well-kept lawn. People would notice a large amount of debri being purposely planted, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Consider: They would have had to plant the wreckage at a precise moment... not too early, nor too late. And they can't control who was looking at the time. You are suggesting they just got lucky, and no one noticed? Do you realize how far-fetched it sounds?

Where was the wreckage kept prior to the attack? Who placed it? You notice wreckage inside is burnt, wreckage outside is not. In the span of minutes, you expect that they expertly pulled this off? Evacuation doesn't mean everyone left the area. I find it hard to believe in the extreme, that not a single person noticed what had to be MANY people, carrying wreckage outside, and placing it on the grass. Do you know for a fact that all those who were evacuated, were sent to a spot where they could not even see the Pentagon or the lawn?

Again to me, it's common sense. As someone who served in the military for years, I know how often missions are screwed up. People make mistakes all the time. Yet you indicate that not just one, but MANY things must have simutanously occured, and NONE of them screwed up, or were noticed. Wreckage planted: no one noticed. Light poles knocked over: no one noticed. BODIES planted? no one noticed. And prior to the attack, no one noticed stored bodies or wreckage, that must have had to been kept very close to the crash site.

Keep in mind that the impact (or lack thereof in your mind) would have been a magnet. Once it occured, everyone's eyes would have been glued to the Pentagon, greatly increasing the chance that anything out of the ordinary would be noticed. You don't give enough credit to those who were there. Well, except to your own witnesses, they get all the benefit of the doubt.


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 11:39 AM by Soloist
Originally posted by elevatedone
Stay on topic, discuss the issue not the other members.


The whole topic of this thread by the OP was an attack on another member, yet it was still allowed to continue?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
here has been such a significant campaign from members on this board, led by "Reheat", who claim to be pilots or "professionals"

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Naturally Reheat makes this false claim without any risk to his "professional" reputation since he chooses to remain anonymous

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Reheat was predictably quiet about this newly released official animation, and then to make matters worse for him, a "colleague" of his and fellow anonymous CIT detractor who goes by the name "exponent", or "e^n", declared that he had come up with his own north side flight path, based on his own fabricated values, that he deemed aerodynamically "possible".

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
All of this finally forced Reheat to admit that he had been wrong all along

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The extreme irony here is that since Reheat was forced to abandon his mathematical/aerodynamic argument

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But Reheat is once again incorrect as many of the witnesses were very explicit in describing a significant right bank angle after all!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So Reheat is quite incorrect when he says the witnesses don't report the necessary bank angles.



Yes , all of those quotes are from ONE post, the very first.

If that isn't discussing other members, then please explain what is. Sure seems like he came here to start an "internet fight" and go "nah-nah-na-na-na" towards a respected member here, and nothing was done about it then.


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 12:20 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by fleabit


Your BELIEF does not change the evidence proving the plane was on the north side and therefore didn't hit.

Your argument from incredulity is noted but the fact is that there was a relatively insignificant amount of debris found compared to a 90 ton Boeing, and the area in question was entirely within the comfort of the suspect's own extremely secure and controlled backyard!

This was no normal work environment.

Besides the frantic and panicked evacuation just after the violent event, there was a flurry of activity in the area prior to the event as well.

As stated earlier, the renovation had been going on for years but was scheduled to be complete that week so the semi-permanent construction site right next to the alleged impact was already starting to be torn down. In this Center for Military History interview a renovation contractor, we believe Michael DiPaula, explains how they were moving around trailers and stuff:


"We were in the process right prior to September the 11th cleaning out the area. We just -- we moved all the trailers. Actually, on the tenth we had some other trailers that were just leaving because we were getting ready to turn it back over to the building."
source


But probably even more importantly, the president had traveled from the heliport on 9/10 and was scheduled to arrive there around 12 noon on 9/11!

This means that Secret Service were all over that place and had the excuse to do whatever they wanted within the cover of "securing" the area.

Regular workers do NOT ask questions of the Secret Service.

In this CMH interview from heliport tower ATC/north side witness Sean Boger describes how it is always a "dog and pony show" when the president travels from there:


On September 10th, it was kind of busy because the President flew out. He flew out that Monday, and whenever the President flies out, it is always a dog and pony show, you know.

You have got the Secret Service guys coming around and the dogs sniffing, and everything. So it was kind of like a big old deal. And so on September 10th, you know it was really kind of busy. And he was scheduled to come back on September 11th.

So we know it was going to be another dog and pony show, but we didn't think it was going to happen that soon.
source


So really, under the cover of wrapping up the renovation and the presidential "dog and pony show", they could have done ANYTHING in preparation for the attack and nobody would have asked questions.


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 01:46 PM by fleabit
Your BELIEF does not change the evidence proving the plane was on the north side and therefore didn't hit.


Wait.. let me get this straight, as I am slightly confused about your definition of proof and evidence.

Your stating your 'evidence' is based on 13 eyewitness accounts. As far as I can tell, your entire premise is based on this testimony. And because of this testimony, it proves without a shadow of a doubt that this never occured.

Others are saying that the much larger number of witnesses that claimed to have seen the plane actually physically collide with the side of the Pentagon, proves this occured. But you are saying that this is just a belief, not proof, nor evidence.

How can your witnesses be not just proof, but apparently conclusive proof, that an impact did not occur, yet the witnesses who saw the plane collide with the Pentagon do not provide proof that it did just that? Why is your eyewitness testimony evidence, but the other eyewitness testimony not?

You have said that the people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon "did not see what they thought they saw." Why are they mistaken, but your witnesses are not? The only list I've been directed to, is a list of witnesses where not even half of those in the list, have been contacted. This is not thorough research.

Please explain your theories on why your eyewitness testimony is more compelling and true than other eyewitness testimony. What makes your eyewitnesses absolutely correct and non-mistaken, other than that they would "stake their life on it," and why are ALL the eyewitnesses who say they saw it collide, wrong.


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 02:16 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by fleabit


Out of context media quotes are not evidence.

They are hearsay.

The previously published witnesses were not asked investigative questions regarding exactly where the plane flew.

We have demonstrated how many dozens of the alleged witnesses who are cited as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon really simply saw the plane and heard the explosion but couldn't really see the Pentagon at all.

In their minds they "saw the plane hit the Pentagon" but closer examination shows how this isn't meant literally most of the time.

Until you ask them to describe their experience first-hand and you plot their location on maps and analyze their true POV you will not be able to understand what it is that they really they saw.

Forensic analysis of first-hand witness accounts is paramount to obtaining accurate information.

This is what we do and is the context of the evidence we provide.

Unfortunately for all of us it is shown repeatedly how when the witnesses are forensically analyzed, and the true placement of the plane is focused on, the official story falls apart.

So until you conduct an investigation on this level and provide the actual evidence to contradict the information we provide, you can not accurately state that there is sufficient evidence to counter it.


reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 03:11 PM by Soloist
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by fleabit


Out of context media quotes are not evidence.


But amateur conspiracy theorist interviews are?
Deceiving witnesses by not telling them what you're up to on purpose is evidence?


The previously published witnesses were not asked investigative questions regarding exactly where the plane flew.


Sure they were. And they say the plane flew into the Pentagon.

We have demonstrated how many dozens of the alleged witnesses who are cited as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon really simply saw the plane and heard the explosion but couldn't really see the Pentagon at all.


How about the ones that DID see the actual impact? Oh wait...

In their minds they "saw the plane hit the Pentagon" but closer examination shows how this isn't meant literally most of the time.


I'm sure it was all in their mind. Yes, that must be it. Pssh.


So until you conduct an investigation on this level and provide the actual evidence to contradict the information we provide, you can not accurately state that there is sufficient evidence to counter it.


Sure, because only you have the answers. LOL
Plenty of accurate statements have been made, plenty of evidence is out there, once you take your conspiracy theory spin off of everything your "flyover theory" falls flat.

Flat into the Pentagon, just like all the witnesses claim.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 19 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags