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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

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.


Don't tell me what I believe because you will be wrong just like jthomas.

Of course our claims are falsifiable.

We would logically require a greater amount of directly countering independent verifiable evidence to what we present.

To be very specific, since we have obtained 13 independently corroborated first-hand accounts of the plane on the north side, you would need to present 14 independently corroborated first-hand accounts of the plane on the south side to refute it.

Simple.



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?


I don't see physical evidence of this.

Reports or claims of such a thing can be easily faked.

However the multi-year renovation of their own headquarters gave them plenty of opportunity to plant whatever sized parts they wanted in any secure "off-limits" room that they may have built specifically for that purpose.

And yes I believe that the people in charge of the world's most advanced and richest defense agency would have the weaponry necessary to "embed" planted pieces in columns.

Regardless, none of these claims even begin to remotely refute the evidence we present proving the plane was north of the gas station.

I gave you the requirement.

Now get falsifying.





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




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

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?


It was intentional. Hani allegedly intentionally aimed for that part of the building. Hani allegedly intentionally did not hit the VDOT tower. Hani allegedly intentionally pulled up and leveled out. He allegedly intentionally leveled off not caring about hitting 5 light poles while missing the mast and the overhead sign so he could allegedly intentionally hit the side of the Pentagon--the west wall. He allegedly intentionally tilted his right wing up and his left wing down at 535 mph, quick enough to hit the trailer and then the vent structure.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I'll respond to this thread once as an official response to the blatant lies of jthomas.


Craig, I'm glad you came by to confirm to everyone here that you refuse to interview any of the over 1,000 eyewitnesses to the wreckage.


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.


I didn't say "anyone", did I? You see, everyone here is smart enough to know that "over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage" is not just anyone. Once again, CIT tries to get away with deceiving people here.


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


FACT: Both you and Aldo have refused to interview any of the eyewitnesses to the wreckage despite being asked to do so for over 2 years, on this forum and elsewhere.


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:

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


That letter is meaningless and does not address the nature of the wreckage. You have refused to do interview any of those people who had direct access to the wreckage and give us their statements.


However obviously it is not our responsibility to interview everyone.


Don't be deceitful again, Ranke. I didn't say "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.


Your effort to evade your responsibility falls on deaf ears. You are required to deal with ALL of the evidence about AA77 if you are to claim it did not hit the Pentagon.

Your refusal to interview any of the eyewitnesses to the wreckage means you cannot claim the wreckage is NOT from AA77 nor can you claim it was planted. But you, CIT, and P4T have made those very claims.


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


You have no evidence. You can't even produce one single witness beyond the Pentagon who witnessed a flyover nor can you produce a flight path away from the Pentagon.


It deals with the flight path, not wreckage.


Thereby confirming to everyone here once again that you refuse to interview the key eyewitnesses to key evidence about AA77 at the Pentagon.

You don't get to cherry-pick evidence. ANY AND ALL evidence or claims about AA77 is on the table. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders to support your claims and you continue to refuse to do so.


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.


Yes, but you are being deceitful to all the readers here once again because you say the wreckage found on the lawn was "planted." And you are being deceitful once again because I am talking about the wreckage inside the Pentagon, aren't I?


To suggest it does is pure faulty logic.


You've been exposed once again,Craig.


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.


Thanks, Craig Ranke, for admitting to everyone again that you refuse to interview any of those 1,000 key eyewitnesses to the wreckage. And thanks for demonstrating that even when your supposed NOC witnesses all believe AA77 DID hit the Pentagon, you deliberately misrepresent them.

I appreciate this opportunity to expose CIT once again. Your ship has sunk, Craig. AA77 hit the Pentagon and you can't refute that fact.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by exponent

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.


Don't tell me what I believe because you will be wrong just like jthomas.


But I have always been right about you and CIT, Craig. As you just read again.

It really is time for you to apologize to the families of the victims of 9/11. It is really poor taste to mislead them as you have.

Will you FINALLY apologize to them, Craig Ranke? And to everyone here?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Thanks for admitting you lied by failing to provide a quote of us "refusing" to interview anyone at all.


Let me leave you and this joke of a thread with the scientifically validated proof we provide that you have failed to refute.

1. Robert Turcios saw it "pull up".


2. Maria De La Cerda thought it hit "on top".

3. Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw it banking around and flying away from the building immediately AFTER the explosion.


There is only one thing for a plane on the north side approach to do.

All of these people could not be so drastically wrong in the exact same way.

13 north side witnesses = proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is where the plane flew.







posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It was intentional. Hani allegedly intentionally aimed for that part of the building. Hani allegedly intentionally did not hit the VDOT tower. Hani allegedly intentionally pulled up and leveled out. He allegedly intentionally leveled off not caring about hitting 5 light poles while missing the mast and the overhead sign so he could allegedly intentionally hit the side of the Pentagon--the west wall. He allegedly intentionally tilted his right wing up and his left wing down at 535 mph, quick enough to hit the trailer and then the vent structure.


This is an amazing series of claims, do you have any evidence to support this or is this just your personal speculation?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It was intentional. Hani allegedly intentionally aimed for that part of the building. Hani allegedly intentionally did not hit the VDOT tower. Hani allegedly intentionally pulled up and leveled out. He allegedly intentionally leveled off not caring about hitting 5 light poles while missing the mast and the overhead sign so he could allegedly intentionally hit the side of the Pentagon--the west wall. He allegedly intentionally tilted his right wing up and his left wing down at 535 mph, quick enough to hit the trailer and then the vent structure.


This is an amazing series of claims, do you have any evidence to support this or is this just your personal speculation?


Exponent, this is what the plane allegedly did according to the official story so this would have to be intent... allegedly.

Regardless, we now know the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, pulled up into an ascent right before the pentagon, and was seen in the south parking lot after the explosion, so we now KNOW for a fact, that Hani wasn't piloting it.

Sorry to have to break it to you........ AGAIN.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Exponent, this is what the plane allegedly did according to the official story so this would have to be intent... allegedly.


I have already explained to you why this is wrong, and why events which occur do not imply intent, I will quote what I said in order that you might better understand:

Originally posted be exponent
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?


I am also hoping that you can provide some evidence for your claims made earlier:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Reports or claims of such a thing can be easily faked.

However the multi-year renovation of their own headquarters gave them plenty of opportunity to plant whatever sized parts they wanted in any secure "off-limits" room that they may have built specifically for that purpose.


I understand you believe that I can only falsify your data by adhering to your requirements, but this is irrelevant to me. I simply wish to show that your claims are likely not correct, and that you do not approach this with an unbiased viewpoint. Do you have any evidence that any of your speculation above is accurate? Wouldn't this mean that the firefighters who participated in this book are liars?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Exponent, this is what the plane allegedly did according to the official story so this would have to be intent... allegedly.


I have already explained to you why this is wrong, and why events which occur do not imply intent, I will quote what I said in order that you might better understand:

Originally posted be exponent
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?


According to the official story, was Hani Hanjour piloting AA77 yes or no?

Yes? Ok, well that is where that whole intent thing comes in.


I am also hoping that you can provide some evidence for your claims made earlier:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Reports or claims of such a thing can be easily faked.

However the multi-year renovation of their own headquarters gave them plenty of opportunity to plant whatever sized parts they wanted in any secure "off-limits" room that they may have built specifically for that purpose.


I understand you believe that I can only falsify your data by adhering to your requirements, but this is irrelevant to me. I simply wish to show that your claims are likely not correct, and that you do not approach this with an unbiased viewpoint. Do you have any evidence that any of your speculation above is accurate? Wouldn't this mean that the firefighters who participated in this book are liars?


Yes that evidence would be the FACT that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. No that doesn't mean firefighters are in on it. Well there was these guys...

s1.zetaboards.com...

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



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
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.


No I am not. And I kindly respect that you'll never accuse me of that again. I'll explain. If, I said if, there was a deception, these people wouldn't know the difference. I wonder why we keep asking for the real evidence (serial parts matching etc.) that flight 77 impacted the pentagon?


Do you really think this is a proper way to investigate? Deny all potential evidence for one side,


Do you?


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.


Yes, how utterly illogical to proclaim that there is more evidence that flight 77 impacted than it didn't. I don't get your logic? Isn't that what you guys claim? That there's more evidence for, than against?


Was this faked? Are the firefighters lying? None of these options make much sense, or have much credibility.


Can firefighters tell which plane and what type of plane that an engine came from?


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.


I have seen a lot of "truthers" exclaim and acknowledge their own biasness. Not something I can really say for the "debunkers".


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


Did the firefighters identify flight 77? Or did they identify liquified, crushed, evaporated, sparsley strewn everywhere parts of what appeared to be parts from a plane?

[edit on 10/9/2008 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas
 


Thanks for admitting you lied by failing to provide a quote of us "refusing" to interview anyone at all.


You just admitted you refused to interview the eyewitnesses to the wreckage several times in your last post. Strike one.


Let me leave you and this joke of a thread with the scientifically validated proof we provide that you have failed to refute.

1. Robert Turcios saw it "pull up".


You refused to provide any evidence or any eyewitness anywhere in the Washington, DC area on the far side of the Pentagon testifying to seeing a flyover. You have no reports from anyone or from the media or from any "whistleblowers." You are completely naked and exposed as lying. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims. Strike two.


3. Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw it banking around and flying away from the building immediately AFTER the explosion.


In which case, you would have HAD to have had many dozens of corroborating eyewitnesses on a departing flight path from the other side of the Pentagon. You have no one and you have no flight path away from the Pentagon. Strike three. You're out, Craig Ranke.

Thank you again for demonstrating that you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims, cannot refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, and continue to knowingly misrepresent the facts and the truth.

All the more reason for you to apologize NOW, Craig Ranke.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Regardless, we now know the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, pulled up into an ascent right before the pentagon, and was seen in the south parking lot after the explosion, so we now KNOW for a fact, that Hani wasn't piloting it.


We know you know that's your bald-face lie, Craig. You have no evidence whatsoever.

Why don't you just be a man and admit you have no eyewitnesses to a flyover, and no knowledge of what the wreckage inside the Pentagon is?

Don't you want to live in the real world instead of in your fantasy?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
No I am not. And I kindly respect that you'll never accuse me of that again. I'll explain. If, I said if, there was a deception, these people wouldn't know the difference. I wonder why we keep asking for the real evidence (serial parts matching etc.) that flight 77 impacted the pentagon?

I'm afraid this is simple rationalisation. You're seriously suggesting that none of these people who saw the plane impact the pentagon would know the difference if htey did not? Regardless of the identity of the plane these people saw it impact.


Do you?

Not at all, I do not deny any of the evidence CIT has gathered, I just find it to be at odds with physical evidence and of relatively low reliability. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that it is quite interesting that all three corroborate each other, but CITs witnesses do contradict each other and are up against a mountain of physical evidence.


Yes, how utterly illogical to proclaim that there is more evidence that flight 77 impacted than it didn't. I don't get your logic? Isn't that what you guys claim? That there's more evidence for, than against?

More, and more reliable evidence yes, but I am claiming this without denying evidence. Craig and CIT as a whole have verbosely stated that evidence from any government sources cannot be trusted. This is denial, not a reasonable balanced appraisal.


Can firefighters tell which plane and what type of plane that an engine came from?

Does it matter? We're not discussing the identity of the plane here, but whether it impacted at all. Craig's theory is that this evidence must have been prepared in special sealed rooms, but as usual this is pure speculation, with absolutely no evidence, eyewitness or otherwise in support of it.


I have seen a lot of "truthers" exclaim and acknowledge their own biasness. Not something I can really say for the "debunkers".

I'm sure I have bias I cannot tell, but I do the best job I can of looking at all evidence, and I doubt you can quote me denying any evidence at all without good reason to.


Did the firefighters identify flight 77? Or did they identify liquified, crushed, evaporated, sparsley strewn everywhere parts of what appeared to be parts from a plane?

As above, it is irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
According to the official story, was Hani Hanjour piloting AA77 yes or no?

Yes? Ok, well that is where that whole intent thing comes in.

Not at all Craig. I may have intended to throw coins to the floor, but I never intended for them to take that pattern.

How is it that you're unable to see this? Hani Hanjour intended to hit The Pentagon, the minutiae of this impact are irrelevant to this intent, you cannot simply assume that they were part of it.


Yes that evidence would be the FACT that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. No that doesn't mean firefighters are in on it. Well there was these guys...

Circular logic, this (so called) "fact" is dependent on the physical evidence being faked. You cannot therefore use it to prove the physical evidence was faked.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I wonder why we keep asking for the real evidence (serial parts matching etc.) that flight 77 impacted the pentagon?


We wondered too since no serial numbers are needed to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

YOU know that too.

Which makes your strawman argument all the more indicative of the desperation of your 9/11 Denial Movement.

Let's be real, Griff. It's been seven years and your utterly ridiculous 9/11 Denial Movement has accomplished nothing and now that it's in it's waning days the full desperate arguments that you and your Movement make are only designed to convince yourselves that you are not on the Titanic, sinking.

But, my friend, you are. Every time we debunk your Denial Movement's fanciful and irrational notions, you all go into complete denial. Give it up. You lost. Your play time is over!

Now, one more time I will repeat what you KNOW is true: One does NOT need the serial numbers from AA77 parts to KNOW that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Gather with your Movement, take deep breaths, and repeat that to yourselves until you banish the nonsense which you have let govern your minds.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

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.



again i ask for proof of refusal. that is a bold claim. it should be supported with bold evidence. otherwise you are lying.


Various poster have asked them to do that for over 2 years.



Mod edit: removed profanity and insults


or not care enough because they have blind faith in philip zelikow?



You already know that. You and CIT claim any wreckage was "planted" therefore irrelevant.



well if someone could have provided some of those "irrelevant" serial numbers to debris belonging from aa77 it would carry a lot of weight against such claims, don't you think?


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.


why does cit have to interview anyone involved in the clean up if every single eyewitness they find says the plane flew over the navy annex approaching on the north side of the citgo and not a single one of them ever sees it clipping light poles including sean boger. every single eyewitness. that is called corroboration and consistency. do you need a link to an online dictionary for those 2 words?



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10/10/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terrorcell

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?


Can't you read their own posts? Craig refused again right in this thread.



Various poster have asked them to do that for over 2 years.





Mod edit: removed profanity and insults

or not care enough because they have blind faith in philip zelikow?


NOBODY is going to do CIT's investigation for them. It's THEIR claims and they have the burden of proof of addressing ALL of the evidence. When is that basic fact going to penetrate?


You already know that. You and CIT claim any wreckage was "planted" therefore irrelevant.



well if someone could have provided some of those "irrelevant" serial numbers to debris belonging from aa77 it would carry a lot of weight against such claims, don't you think?


It's totally irrelevant and CIT's strawman argument.


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.



why does cit have to interview anyone involved in the clean up if every single eyewitness they find says the plane flew over the navy annex approaching on the north side of the citgo and not a single one of them ever sees it clipping light poles including sean boger. every single eyewitness. that is called corroboration and consistency. do you need a link to an online dictionary for those 2 words?


The answer is so obvious you should be embarrassed for asking it. Do you understand that IF a flyover took place that there would be scores of eyewitnesses on the far side of the Pentagon? Do you understand if that were the case, there would be many reports and CIT would have been beating the doors down trying to get interviews from them? Do you understand that CIT would have a flight path extending beyond the Pentagon?

No, gullible truthers never think of the implications of CIT's claims. That my friend, is why CIT refuses to provide any evidence or do any interviews of key eyewitnesses.

And that is just another reason the 9/11 Truth Movement is in its final days before it enters the trashbin of history.




[edit on 10/10/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Craig's theory is that this evidence must have been prepared in special sealed rooms, but as usual this is pure speculation, with absolutely no evidence, eyewitness or otherwise in support of it.


See, this is very important. We all know Ranke has admitted that all the plane parts had to have planted. His side kick Aldo has even stated that if there were bodies still strapped to their seats, that they were probably frozen cadavers.

This has to be looked at objectively. Wedge one had been under construction for several years, and was pretty much completed at the time of the attack.

Ranks is aware of this and is also aware of the fact that the construction was (and still is) being done by civilian contractors.

Therefor, one has to conclude that these contractors are in on it, and are part of it. There is no way in hell construction workers would simply dismiss rooms filled with thousands of pounds of airplane parts. Walls embedded with massive amounts of explosives, or rooms with bodies inside of them.

Look also at the damage done to the Generator that was hit by flight 77. The damage that was done (if not by flight 77) would have had to have carefully placed charges around it to mimic the damage of an airplane.

What construction worker would not notice this?

You would also have to assume that fire fighters are also involved in this. They would be witnesses to these airplane parts being scattered about inside and out of the Pentagon. How much did that landing gear weigh? How wold it get there? How about the section of the engine? How much does that weigh?

CIT and PFT are in fact on their last legs...the only reason why they are around so long? The lack of anything new from other fantasies of the truth movement.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Eventually, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Rob Balsamo will be forced to apologize to the families of the victims of 9/11 for deliberate misrepresentation of the facts about AA77 and the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The only way to identify the plane is for the serial parts to be viewed on the wreckage and then cross referenced with the appropriate documentation.

How many trained and qualified people picked up pieces and followed the appropriate procedures to document this wreckage?

How do you think authorities linked the Ryder truck to McVeigh after the OKC bombing? If you said part numbers on an axle you would be correct.
A part was produced with a serial number that could be traced back to the manufacture's records and used as evidence in a court of law.

Do you honestly think that a random yellow piece off of a moving truck could be used to link the actual truck used in the bombing to the perpetrator?
The judge of course would say, "How can you prove this piece of evidence is from the alleged truck linking the criminal to the vehicle?" And the JREF debunker would answer because "we know it is!" f

You JREF debunkers cry for evidence. I have a suggestion,JTHOMAS and others. Contact the appropriate Federal authorities to determine how private or public citizen can gain access to the wreckage to examine it for serial numbers. That is your answer in reference to examining actual wreckage.

You want CIT to interview people who picked up parts off the lawn. Their response, "Yeah I picked up stuff." Can it be proven to be from AA77? Nope. That is where those pesky serial numbers come into play.

The relevance of the physical evidence is of course diminished by the 13 witnesses who fatally contradict the flight path. The case then could be presented as an inside job, unless 13 others could be provided to support the official story.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join