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.

 

An Opportunity for CIT and P4T

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I don't have to prove the wreckage is from AA77.

Then you can't prove that the alleged plane that allegedly crashed was Flight AA77. It's as simple as that.



I have yet to see any of you - and in particular, CIT and P4T - take any initiative to investigate what the wreckage was inside the Pentagon.

Please, for the sake of clarity, can you show me where in the official doctrine that the Pentagon allows private citizens to conduct their own investigations into crime scenes on location?

The best that a private citizen can hope to achieve, in the way of research, is to use the government reports to conduct their own investigation. But how can a private citizen begin their investigation when there is no government report that identifies any of the alleged wreckage?



You guys need to think.

I can see how other people not only need to start thinking, but they also need to stop 'believing'.




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Please, for the sake of clarity, can you show me where in the official doctrine that the Pentagon allows private citizens to conduct their own investigations into crime scenes on location?


Exactly what I was trying to get at. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
especially no official story that 5 arabs hijacked a 757 and flew towards the pentagon tearing lightpoles out of the ground [one of which impales a cab] with a military like manuever that a poorly skilled cessna pilot pulls off managing to level off 1foot 11inches off the ground before slamming into the building.

good gig, ain't it?


I don't know why you keep repeating this Dom. I guess it's a good show of your bias, but here's a simple question for you.

Was Hani Hanjour a qualified pilot or not? Did he hold a commercial pilots license or not?


well he did fail a test to rent a cessna just prior to 9/11 so what do you believe?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You'll have to ask Craig and Aldo why they have refused for over two years to interview any of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon in the days and weeks after 9/11.


is there any evidence to support your claim that craig & aldo "refuse" to interview anyone for over 2 years or any period of time or are you lying?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
AA77 was easily identified.

Please show me part numbers and forensic evidence that prove the scrap metal was wreckage from the alleged Flight AA77.


Part numbers are completely irrelevant to knowing if AA77 hit the Pentagon or not





talk about bias!!!

"the evidence isn't necessary to prove anything our owners tell us!!!"




You guys need to think.


dear pot,

stop calling me black.

sincerely,

kettle



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
again this stupid immature childish thread has not done a single thing to diminish the eyewitness testimonies presented by cit nor the research presented by pft.

all it has done is expose the mental instability of the neonazicon bush loyalists.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
So, Griff, you forgot already? How many times do I have to give you the list? When are you going to get off your butt and get the interviews from these guys? Or ask CIT what it refuses to interview them.


Well, since your list contains no one that is not part of the gubment, I would say you failed to list anyone that I asked.


I always marvel at your complete denial, Griff. Here you have the list full of NON-federal government, NON-Pentagon agencies or employees, on the scene in the minutes, hours days, and weeks after 9/11, with direct, independent access to the wreckage and YOU can interview any of them. But what do you do?

You go into the deepest state of 9/11 truther denial possible.

Now, take a deep breath and tell us WHEN you will get interviews and statements from the over 1,000 people with direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon. Or tell us why you and every 9/11 Truther continues to refuse to get their statements.


Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


In these waning days of the existence of your 9/11 Denial Movement, at least you can show us you made one attempt at getting evidence to support your claims, don't you agree?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
in this video you can see the pentagon images taken inside the pentagon by leo titus.

i obtained them.

i released them.

please feel free to point out all the plane debris nobody else can find in these pics.




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
I don't have to prove the wreckage is from AA77.

Then you can't prove that the alleged plane that allegedly crashed was Flight AA77. It's as simple as that.


I don't have to prove that AA77 hit the Pentagon. YOU have to prove it didn't. After seven years of trying, you haven't. The burden of proof is still on your shoulders no matter how much you try to evade your responsibility.




I have yet to see any of you - and in particular, CIT and P4T - take any initiative to investigate what the wreckage was inside the Pentagon.

Please, for the sake of clarity, can you show me where in the official doctrine that the Pentagon allows private citizens to conduct their own investigations into crime scenes on location?

Very simple. If you had bothered to read what has been written for over two years concerning CIT's investigation, you have well over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon, who are and never were controlled by the federal government nor the Pentagon, that are people fully accessible for you and CIT to interview.


The best that a private citizen can hope to achieve, in the way of research, is to use the government reports to conduct their own investigation. But how can a private citizen begin their investigation when there is no government report that identifies any of the alleged wreckage?


If you don't believe AA77 hit the Pentagon, then get out and interview those as I suggested above. You can also ask yourself a question: why has CIT REFUSED to do so? Ranke and Marquis have a long record on ATS and other forums of refusing to interview any key eyewitnesses to the wreckage. They just say "the wreckage was planted" without a stitch of evidence.

You can also ask why this author interviewed 150 of those people and tell us why you or anybody else can't.




You guys need to think.



I can see how other people not only need to start thinking, but they also need to stop 'believing'.


I believe in where the preponderance of evidence. Your believe in myths you were told by the 9/11 Denial Movement and can't produce evidence. Don't you thinks it's time to change?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Nope. Since they all are government employees with the exclusion of American Airlines.

Now, again I'll ask to post something non-governmental related in the investigation. Bet ya can't.


Oh Griff, I had hoped you would not stray this far into irrelevant cynicism. Just because someone is employed by the government does not mean that they are somehow immediately corrupt. You are accusing thousands of people by proxy of complicity in the murder of 3000 or so people.

Do you really think this is a proper way to investigate? Deny all potential evidence for one side, and then proclaim that because the other side has now more evidence it wins? This is how Kent Hovind debates, and it is utterly illogical.

For example, take the book "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11" (amazon link: www.amazon.com...=cm_rdp_product )

Here is an excerpt courtesy of SLC

The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch's group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft's two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.

FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift.


Was this faked? Are the firefighters lying? None of these options make much sense, or have much credibility. There's no easy way to dismiss these accounts, and that so many people are willing to do so based only on their personal bias shows just how far it is possible for the human mind to pick and choose.

Why would firefighters lie about this? Why would they keep quiet about such a heinous act? Can you give me any compelling reason whatsoever?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
well he did fail a test to rent a cessna just prior to 9/11 so what do you believe?


What do you mean what do I believe, don't you mean what does the evidence show?. Why don't you answer the question without asking another question Dom? It was a simple enough thing to find out.

Was Hani Hanjour a qualified and licensed commercial pilot or not?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio

Originally posted by jthomas
You'll have to ask Craig and Aldo why they have refused for over two years to interview any of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon in the days and weeks after 9/11.


is there any evidence to support your claim that craig & aldo "refuse" to interview anyone for over 2 years or any period of time or are you lying?


Not just "anyone." They refuse to interview those who had direct access to wreckage from inside the Pentagon in the days and weeks after 9/11. Just review the exchanges right here on ATS.

Various poster have asked them to do that for over 2 years. You already know that. You and CIT claim any wreckage was "planted" therefore irrelevant.

You are welcome to present any of the interviews with those over 1,000 eyewitnesses that CIT has done or ask them to conduct them. We'll await your answer.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
AA77 was easily identified.

Please show me part numbers and forensic evidence that prove the scrap metal was wreckage from the alleged Flight AA77.


Part numbers are completely irrelevant to knowing if AA77 hit the Pentagon or not.



That's correct. Part numbers are not necessary in establishing whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon. Of course, they have validity in establishing many other things in an investigation, but they are not necessary in establishing whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Of course, you need to construct that strawman because you have absolutely NO evidence that AA77 did anything BUT hit the Pentagon.

Furthermore, you have NO ability to claim that part numbers or serial numbers were not recorded in the investigation. Even more so because you and CIT absolutely refuse to interview anyone who had direct access to the wreckage. And if there were reports of serial numbers, you would have claimed what you already claimed: the wreckage was planted.

Just like you did with the part photographed on the Pentagon lawn.

Nothing like repeatedly sticking your foot in your mouth, Dom.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
again this stupid immature childish thread has not done a single thing to diminish the eyewitness testimonies presented by cit nor the research presented by pft.


You can't diminish something that does not exist, Dom. ALL of CIT's witnesses are on record of stating AA77 hit the Pentagon. You can't produce any evidence of a flyover.

In any case, you refuse to interview any relevant witnesses and refuse to present any flyover eyewitnesses from the other side of the Pentagon.

We'll continue to ask and you'll continue to refuse. Because you and we know you have nothing to offer.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
in this video you can see the pentagon images taken inside the pentagon by leo titus.

i obtained them.

i released them.

please feel free to point out all the plane debris nobody else can find in these pics.


Irrelevant.

You are on record of dismissing all of the photographs taken of wreckage inside the Pentagon. You claim any wreckage was "planted."

So of course you'll find a video showing no wreckage. If it did, you'd dismiss that also.

You don't fool anyone, Dom. You just further show the desperation of CIT and 9/11 "Truth."



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio

well he did fail a test to rent a Cessna just prior to 9/11 so what do you believe?


Are you equating the failure of Hanjour to rent a cessna with a perceived inability to crash an aircraft? That's absurd.

The most inept moron might not be able to rent a Cessna but could still operate the yoke of an airliner and crash into a building. It is abundantly clear Hanjour knew at the very *least* the basics of a cockpit - flight controls, power levers, transponder. What more do you need to crash an aircraft if that is your ultimate goal? He wasn't trying to get on Captain Bob's "List of Members" list, was he? Of course not. His objective was to fly an aircraft into a building and he was quite well qualified to do just that.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I'll respond to this thread once as an official response to the blatant lies of jthomas.

jthomas' continuous claims that we "refuse" to interview anyone are completely false which is why he fails to provide a quote where we made this claim.

He is speaking for us and blatantly lying as a means to cast doubt on us personally.

We have in fact spoken with first responders and a still currently enlisted hero from that day who saved many lives and wrote us a letter of support:


He is one of the guys in this image:


So we have avoided nobody and more importantly we have not "refused" to interview anyone nor would we ever.

However obviously it is not our responsibility to interview everyone.

That is a silly and impossible assertion and a clear effort to move the goal posts as means to diminish the scientifically validated evidence we provide proving the plane was on the north side of the gas station.

Bottom line the evidence we present can not be refuted by anyone who didn't see the plane anyway.

It deals with the flight path, not wreckage.

The fact that relatively small amounts of wreckage were photographed and found has never been denied by us and the fact that some people saw it does not come close to refuting the evidence we present regarding the flight path proving a military deception on 9/11.

To suggest it does is pure faulty logic.

Even if someone DID interview all of the alleged "1,000" people that jthomas is referring to, if they didn't see the plane, nothing they could possibly say could refute the corroborated evidence we present regarding the true flight path of the plane.

Faulty logic does not refute hard evidence and jthomas' continuous illogical badgering and blatant misrepresentation of our claims without quoting or sourcing us exposes his dishonesty and clear obsession with deflecting attention from the critical evidence we present by attacking us personally.





[edit on 9-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Even if someone DID interview all of the alleged "1,000" people that jthomas is referring to, if they didn't see the plane, nothing they could possibly say could refute the corroborated evidence we present regarding the true flight path of the plane.


This is a perfect example of why discussion directly with CIT is pretty much useless. Their claims are not falsifiable, nothing could change their beliefs.

Craig, did you read the excerpt I posted? Do you believe that these "several hundred pound" parts found embedded into structural columns were somehow faked?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio

well he did fail a test to rent a Cessna just prior to 9/11 so what do you believe?


Are you equating the failure of Hanjour to rent a cessna with a perceived inability to crash an aircraft? That's absurd.

The most inept moron might not be able to rent a Cessna but could still operate the yoke of an airliner and crash into a building. It is abundantly clear Hanjour knew at the very *least* the basics of a cockpit - flight controls, power levers, transponder. What more do you need to crash an aircraft if that is your ultimate goal? He wasn't trying to get on Captain Bob's "List of Members" list, was he? Of course not. His objective was to fly an aircraft into a building and he was quite well qualified to do just that.


I love how you make it seem so simple, like he just pointed the aircraft down and dove into the Pentagon randomly.

WRONG.

The official FABRICATED flight path is very complex.

He allegedly went into/descent at 535 mph from the top of the VDOT tower or even much higher according to the FDR, as he then pulls up to level out(at 10-34 G's) and carefully thead himself through a needle-eye path of 5 light poles, while he misses the VDOT camera mast and overhead sign, then quickly within a nano second tilting his right wing up to hit the fence/generator trailer and then his left wing down to hit the vent structure with his left engine (can you explain how he did that at 535 mph) to then make a perfect impact without wrecking on the lawn..ALLEGEDLY.

That is not just "crashing into a building"



[edit on 9-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
That is not just "crashing into a building"


You are committing the fallacy of assuming that this is intentional. I can throw a thousand coins onto the floor, and no matter how many times you attempt to recreate the exact distribution you will be incapable. Does this mean that I intended for the coins to form this particular pattern?







 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join